China Flanker Thread II

[vesicles]

most Chinese web i seen actually believe that China is high tech country at par with the US or japan.

With top of the line technology, China still lags behind, but china is up there with the best in terms of everyday average Joe techs. Last year, I went back to China for the second time in 22 years. I was shocked by the technologies they had. The first thing I encountered: GPS in their cabs. Almost all the cabs had GSP with dual screen showing not only maps but also Google Earth type of photos and voice warning of not only speed limits but also where traffic cameras and radar detectors are. The second thing I immediately noticed: traffic indicators on highways. Just like those apps we can download onto our phones, you can immediately tell which roads have heavy traffic or jammed up. Only these indicators are huge and placed along the side of highways. The kind of special features you can find in their cars, their houses, etc. I don't know about you, but I have not seen anything like these in Texas.

 

[kroko]

rumor about the purchase of SU-35 may have been internal debate within the PLAAF.reality there was problem regarding the engine but ,out of national pride or patriotism ,most Chinese blogger will simple ignore the reality and embrace a fantasy.
not just on this website but also all the Chinese website .
most Chinese web i seen actually believe that China is high tech country at par with the US or japan.

Are you saying that people in this forum are living in a fantasy?

Why dont you present credible sources backing your claims, instead of bashing others?

 

[MiG-29]

I have a question for the aerodynamic buffs here. What gives a plane better agility a higher thrust to weight ratio or TVC control.

The answer is TVC nozzles, while you hear many things here, the test were down back in the 1990s, when X-31 with TVC nozzles faced F-18s back in the 1990s, the X-31s had worse TWR than the F-18s but had TVC nozzles.
The winner were the X-31s.


If you want to understand the kind of monster the Su-35S is consider it has 3D TVC nozzles and 117s of 14.5 tonnes, it is much much better than even Su-37 and Su-30MKI.


However if you go to math, you will discover that Thrust vectoring is directly related to the raw yield of the thrust and the nozzles angle of deflection.
But basicly TVC nozzles increase agility beyond what pure non vectored thrust can achieve.

But as Bogdan just stated, super maneouvrability is like a sniper`s position, once it becomes predictable the sniper loses all his advantages, but in air to air close combat where speed is bled TVC nozzles are an asset.

Read this article
“Most of the fighters we have available today with vectored thrust, the Su-30MKI and MKM, can perform these maneuvers,” Bogdan tells Aviation Week. “Where this aircraft is different is that it has more thrust, so when it performs the 'bell' maneuver, it can stand still, with afterburning on, and can sustain flight at 120-140 kph.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

i hope you could get the answer you were looking for regards

 

[hardware]

Are you saying that people in this forum are living in a fantasy?

Why dont you present credible sources backing your claims, instead of bashing others?

nope,rather unable to accept hard fact.

 

[Lion]

nope,rather unable to accept hard fact.

A country that can build the world fastest computer will never not in the top 3 tier techology country.

 

[plawolf]

nope,rather unable to accept hard fact.

And just what 'hard facts' have you actually provided? I just see some text with no headers or watermark or any sort of identifying features that could have been whipped up by any one who can type Chinese.

The claims themselves are so comically absurd its really a wonder how anyone can believe it for a second.

You say these are from a Chinese magazine? Which one exactly, lets have a name and issue.

Even if this was published in a mainland magazine, that hardly makes it remotely close to being the official position of the PLAAF. Since when did magazines speak for militarise or governments?

I mean, seriously man, what were you thinking? But perhaps the more appropriate questions might be, what were you smoking? And can I have some?

 

[dingyibvs]

I can see the deception in that post. The scan on top and the blowout text below are from 2 different articles. Probably from two different magazines. You can see it in the different layout of the two.

No, at least the first enlarged scanlation is from the same magazine, and NAAS is one of the most reputable military magazines in China. What was said in the magazine contain very valid criticism of the Chinese experience with the J-11 and it certainly sounds 100% plausible to anyone who's done engineering work before.

I laugh at those who say "copying" is easy. Yes, making an exact replica of the Su-27 is relatively easy, though you still need to develop all the machinery to make the parts, but making any modifications to it requires extensive understanding of the plane, which requires you to know almost as much as the original designers about the plane. Any engineer knows that whenever you put a theory to test, a whole host of previously unfathomable problems arise and you need to make modifications as needed. Without extensive documentation, anything of decent complexity is extremely difficult for engineers of the same caliber as the original designer to understand. As the article mentioned, each plane contains hundreds of thousands of parts, and each nut and bolt is the way it is and put at the place it is for a reason.

For example, the article mentioned that the addition of composites in the J-11B was very problematic. Yes, the weight reduced, but the center of gravity changed and a whole host of problems came from that, particularly in terms of reliability and stability, leading to the early J-11B's not being not as reliable as the Su-27's and not performing as well overall despite the reduced weight.

However, the poster obviously had an agenda, as he appeared to only mention the bad parts. The article also mentioned that with the production of the J-16 and the J-15, SAC has likely overcome this hurdle and completely understood the structure of the plane. After all, if simply replacing a few parts with composites presented such problems, making the modifications to make the J-16 would've rendered the plane almost unflyable and certainly unacceptable to the PLA if the engineers at SAC did not fully appreciate how every part works.

 

[rhino123]

article scan from official chinese magazine. this amount to official acknowledgement.the problem not only in the engine but also other area, such as metallurgy,composite material..
in fact AVIC spoekman told aviaition week that chinese make engine are unrelalble and suffer from short life span.

What official chinese magazine? Show the full article and not bits and pieces of the magazines, which might even been taken out from different time and months and not to mentions might not even be real. I have always maintained when someone see something in the net, please (is that soooo difficult to ask), think through.... instead of immediately stating that it is the bible of stuff.

Secondly... what AVIC spokeman? Name? time that interview? References? If none of that are presented, I would say that it is BS or fantasy cooked by yourself.

the decisiom to adapt WS-10 may have been political,despite the teething problem,it can open the Russian blackmail.surely china remember what happen in 1961,or Egypt in the 70's.

Proof what you have said. Or else it is nothing but your own opinion, and since I believe in "everyone had the right to form their own opinion, no matter how stupid that opinion is," so I will not sneer at you, although time and again, your opinion had been proven wrong... I will not quote those instances, but I can (so don't dare me).

However, I have to point out... no one is stupid or insane enough to take national security lightly and place an unreliable sub-component into a frontline defence system (in this case - putting the WS-10A into a J-11B).

nope,rather unable to accept hard fact.

Hard facts? Funny... I didn't see you post any credible links that points to any hard facts, just from the most unreliable sources with fantasy from anti-China posters like Pinkov.

And funny... every now and then people like you would come out with the rumors that J-11B or any Chinese products as inferior and the Chinese looked or is seeking or had bought the Su-35... when asked to present with references and facts... all the thing you provide is hearsay from some unreliable site like the wforum (which time and again had been proven wrong).

Really makes me wonder of your motivation for doing that.

 

[luhai]

nope,rather unable to accept hard fact.

Actually it's limited to some area and few places only. They way I see it, it's not unlike the Chinese military. Where you have a few units using the absolute state of art equipment, but the rest of force is fairly obsolete. Where else in the world would you find an air force with not one, but two 5th gen fighter under testing (J-20 / J-31) and a 2nd ground attack aircraft (Q-5) still compose a significant portion of the force. (okay, okay. The US is also still flying B-52s, but you still get the point..)

In the Army, this is even more true, just look at the number of Type 59s still in service, and from TV footage, many don't seem to be upgraded at all... Mean while you have the Type 99 arming just a handful of units.

Navy was in the same boat just a few years ago, before the surge of 054As and 056s that finally turned the tide.

On the civilian technology front... let's look at cityscape
China, the ultra modern time lapses
[video=youtube;8HCve8KBUrI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HCve8KBUrI[/video]
Kunming, a rather blend time lapses average Chinese city.
[video=youtube;4UGJ75xq9xs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UGJ75xq9xs[/video]
Finally, the countryside through a HSR time lapses.. (run out of videos I can include in a post)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As for fields, it's really depends on the execution of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in the 1980s and 1990s. The space program, telecommunication, computer and transportation infrastructure did exceptionally well, shipbuilding and energy did okay, semiconductor(Loongson in my opinion is a epic failure, perform far less than what non-target private initiatives like Speardtrum, Rockchip etc have achieved) , pharmaceutical and aircraft industries didn't perform given the money poured into it, while in lasers (at least the ones we know of) and material engineering didn't really achieve any breakthrough. The latter severely constrain the aircraft engines and it really shows.

 

[Deino]

Can we come back to the topic please ????

Deino