J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI

[jobjed]

I was referring to the number on the 2nd aircraft.

Oh, 78278. Another aircraft for your gallery, then.

 

[Deino]

 

[A.Man]

73273-61X1X=12263 12X6X--->126th Brigade XX2X3--->23rd plane of the Brigade

Oh, my head was flying....

Should be: 78273-61X1X=17263 17X6X--->176th Brigade XX2X3--->23rd plane of the Brigade

 

[Totoro]

Since 176th is test and training brigade and since it has both j16 and j20, it's hard to tell from the "23" figure just how many of those are j20 and how many are j16. Would a 12+12 be a sensible supposition?

 

[Inst]

Intentional or not, delusional or dishonest, we can agree the information provided is quite surprising, the claim outrageous, and pretty much untrue. It's this sort of sinister/ ignorant journalism that hits the majority that is negatively impacting China. Similar level of journalism would be an article about how all Chinese people kidnap pet dogs for their dinner. I'm sorry but once you're on the receiving end of such garbage, it incites an emotional response, a desire to correct it, and anger at the person spreading it. It's something that's easy for all humans to empathise because we've all been through such frustrations. Even though this is relatively minuscule, this is a military forum and we like to discuss these sort of things, often with more passion than rationality.

There is absolutely no evidence of Chinese xenophobia displayed in the last few pages. Inst could you please indicate where you thought I was being unfair? I would recommend you view some Russian boards if you think this forum is xenophobic. Those guys make the Indians look like China lovers. In any case what was posted in the last few pages is far from xenophobia, rather just expression disdain for the person writing the article (while providing excellent reasons why). No race/nationality based insults were posted. Nothing even close. No indication of a dislike of Russian people or culture either. So I don't know why you would even write that unless you are just very sensitive about these things and anything not 100% positive written about Russians is considered "xenophobic" against them.

About the underlying claim, it is possible that Chinese AESA development is as problematic as engine technology; i.e, the Chinese have the AESA technology, but have been at pains to make it work reliably. For instance, the Yankeesama claimed that the peolpe who examined the Su-35 noted that the Su-35 PESA was capable of using narrow beam to extend range far beyond 300 km. This should be a basic capability of any ESA; i.e, the ability to form narrow beams to enable tracking at longer ranges than search.

 

[Tirdent]

I agree that claims according to which there are no operational AESAs on PLAAF fighters (notably J-10C and J-16) don't stand up to scrutiny, but I wouldn't necessarily dismiss reports of a certain level of Russian input. You don't need to have a fighter AESA (let alone a lower-band naval AESA, the manufacturing requirements for which are significantly different*) in production to know how to develop various aspects of one. Think cooling system or ECCM signal processing algorithms. Even design of the MMICs - some of the most successful chip design companies don't have their own manufacturing capability at all (ARM, for one), they merely license their design to the customer who then commissions a dedicated foundry like TSMC to mass-produce it. Consider also the substantial influence of Russian émigrés on Intel's Pentium processor architecture - industry in Russia had no hope of actually executing such a design, yet they knew just fine what a world-beating CPU *should* be like.

* Even so, the first Admiral Gorshkov frigate with its AESA radar was transferred to the Northern Fleet and formally commissioned last year, the second is likely to follow soon. Better yet, I suspect a number of Russian fixed-site ABM radars (notably the Don-2N battle management radar outside Moscow) have been AESAs for decades. So is (for a non-Russian example) EriEye which was introduced in the mid-1990s.

 

[plawolf]

Let’s make one thing clear, Russian input does not equal Russian involvement or assistance.

China could well be engaging Russian experts, but such input could very likely be for consultations and evaluation only, much like the Su35 buy.

If Russia is willing to share their more advanced technologies with China, China would be foolish to not at least take a close look and evaluate it.

However, just because China has taken a good look at what the Russians have to offer, and heard out what their experts have to say, it does not necessarily mean the Chinese are having any technical difficulties with their own work, or found anything of value from the Russian input to be worth incorporating into their own assets.

 

[Blitzo]

About the underlying claim, it is possible that Chinese AESA development is as problematic as engine technology; i.e, the Chinese have the AESA technology, but have been at pains to make it work reliably. For instance, the Yankeesama claimed that the peolpe who examined the Su-35 noted that the Su-35 PESA was capable of using narrow beam to extend range far beyond 300 km. This should be a basic capability of any ESA; i.e, the ability to form narrow beams to enable tracking at longer ranges than search.

From what I understood, yankeesama was saying that the 300km range touted for the radar was "only" a available for narrow beams.

I.e. that they were unimpressed because the 300km number was only useful in certain conditions and a reflection of the marketing for the radar

 

[Gloire_bb]

yankeesama was saying that the 300km range touted for the radar was "only" a available for narrow beams.

It's more about tactical concepts than anything else.
Narrow scan with the maximum output is a crucial a2a mode for Soviet and Russian fighters for half a century(i.e. since the early 70s).

 

[plawolf]

It's more about tactical concepts than anything else.
Narrow scan with the maximum output is a crucial a2a mode for Soviet and Russian fighters for half a century(i.e. since the early 70s).

You get more range with a tight beam than with wide beam.

The Chinese are not passing judgement on Russian fighter doctrine, just unimpressed their advertised max range could only be achieve thus.