Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Flieger56

Is The West Falling Behind In Anti-Ship Missiles?

Well, Are They?  

23 members have voted

  1. 1. Well, Are They?

    • Yes
      14
    • No
      9

81 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
5,165 posts
60 battles
17 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Define extreme.  Ramjets work efficiently at supersonic speeds.  In fact, they are more efficient at supersonic speeds than turbojets and in fact, the turbofans are the worst of all when it comes to this speed regime.  How you direct the air into the combustion chamber requires careful engineering and aerodynamic sculpting, tuning and testing of the intakes and intake ducts to a specific speed range, something you can do with wind tunnels and supercomputer simulations --- both the Chinese have no lack of and certainly plenty of the latter.  For that matter, the Chinese may have originally learned this from studying the Russian Kh-31 and Sunburn missiles the Russians sold them.  What you think is a problem is already solved by the Russians decades ago and only needs to be improved and refined since.

 

As for the F-22, I also hear stories that the "brain box" has to be rebooted at times.  

 

As for the J-20, it does not bear any similarity to the F-22 in terms of aerodynamic planform and design.  The J-20 is a delta with canards with no tail elevators.  That's a very unstable design and requires its own FBW software to work specifically for it.  It specifically uses the canards to generate lift vortices across the main wing.  This has more to do with the previous J-10 project and which may have its head start from the Israeli Lavi project.

 

 

Indeed. Different turbine propulsion system works efficiently at different speed regime. For example, turbofan not has the worst efficiency but also has weak range. You could see why modern jets today go for low bypass turbofan engines for more operation range and hence longer operation time, to reap the benefit of turbofan's fuel efficiency.

Though I'm not very keen of hypersonic background, but I can tell that the aerodynamics is very stressful to come up with a good enough design. Even more so on CFD turbulence simulation. Of course, turbulence in between supersonic & hypersonic regions is very... phenomenally unstable & unpredictable, to the point that it require months of intensive numerical simulations that a supercomputer can support it without a problem to validate.

Hmm... Sounds like you're in the engineering field for years, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts
17 minutes ago, Xero_Snake said:

Brahmos was based on Oniks, not Moskit, mind you.

Well, what do you think of PAK FA?

:Smile_smile:

 

Looks pretty good.  The control surfaces at the inner leading edge of the wing allows for controllable vortice generation --- probably requires an FBW written specifically for that.  Its meant to give some of the advantages of a canard when it comes to high alpha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
20 minutes ago, Xero_Snake said:

Brahmos was based on Oniks, not Moskit, mind you.

Well, what do you think of PAK FA?

:Smile_smile:

Whoops, my apologies, you are correct. Got sloppy with the SS-N-19 and incorrectly remembered it as the SS-N-22. (Since the Oniks was designed as a replacement for both the Moskit and the Granit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
5 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Looks pretty good.  The control surfaces at the inner leading edge of the wing allows for controllable vortice generation --- probably requires an FBW written specifically for that.  Its meant to give some of the advantages of a canard when it comes to high alpha.

It's indicative of the Russians trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to high AoA envelope performance and super-maneuverability with a level of stealth that's actually useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,681 posts
8,111 battles
50 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

 ...stolen from the F-35 project.

I have no sympathies on the military ambition of China, but I ask of you to stop pass on the false claims from wherever you acquired them. The work of those technicians and the challenges they have to overcome are not to be insulted by any media or critics who made up the news to appease the populus. My father once worked for the Boeing plant, and based on my limited knowledge from my short periods of internship I can tell you that the J-20 project are too aerodynamically different and different from design designation with F-35 project to be related with F-35. J-20 is a pure heavy air-supremacy fighter, sacrificing partial manoeuvrability characteristics for high altitude-speed performance, with not a single pound of weight wasted on ground pounding. F-35 is a multi-role, single engine mid-low altitude fighter, with its focus and strength vastly different with the J-20. The F-35 can never out-fought, nor was designed to fight, fighters like the J-20, we have the Raptors for that. My father and his colleagues pays great respect to the whoever is struggling in China for their country, and my father always taught me to put aside our prejudices and at least view them as worthy opponents, if not colleagues in pursuit of perfection.

 

Next time you want to include words like "stolen from the F-35 project" I would kindly ask of you to shove it up your ugly aft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
17 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

I have no sympathies on the military ambition of China, but I ask of you to stop pass on the false claims from wherever you acquired them. The work of those technicians and the challenges they have to overcome are not to be insulted by any media or critics who made up the news to appease the populus. My father once worked for the Boeing plant, and based on my limited knowledge from my short periods of internship I can tell you that the J-20 project are too aerodynamically different and different from design designation with F-35 project to be related with F-35. J-20 is a pure heavy air-supremacy fighter, sacrificing partial manoeuvrability characteristics for high altitude-speed performance, with not a single pound of weight wasted on ground pounding. F-35 is a multi-role, single engine mid-low altitude fighter, with its focus and strength vastly different with the J-20. The F-35 can never out-fought, nor was designed to fight, fighters like the J-20, we have the Raptors for that. My father and his colleagues pays great respect to the whoever is struggling in China for their country, and my father always taught me to put aside our prejudices and at least view them as worthy opponents, if not colleagues in pursuit of perfection.

 

Next time you want to include words like "stolen from the F-35 project" I would kindly ask of you to shove it up your ugly aft.

You're funny kid, in so much as the pathetic assumption of somebody who was supposedly an Intern and had a father who was in the aeronautic field thinking that the only thing you can steal from a program is how to build something that looks like the thing you're stealing from. That assumption is so incorrect it boggles my mind how you're able to turn on your computer to post such trash, it really is. Please be quiet in the future when you feel the urge to open your mouth. :fish_glass:

But I'll make it easy for you and tell you what the Chinese stole, it was data and designs concerning the F-35s PW-F135 and APG-81 AESA radar. Not it's airframe. (Some also think that the F-35's stealth matting/skin were also stolen.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts
1 hour ago, TornadoADV said:

You're funny kid, in so much as the pathetic assumption of somebody who was supposedly an Intern and had a father who was in the aeronautic field thinking that the only thing you can steal from a program is how to build something that looks like the thing you're stealing from. That assumption is so incorrect it boggles my mind how you're able to turn on your computer to post such trash, it really is. Please be quiet in the future when you feel the urge to open your mouth. :fish_glass:

But I'll make it easy for you and tell you what the Chinese stole, it was data and designs concerning the F-35s PW-F135 and APG-81 AESA radar. Not it's airframe. (Some also think that the F-35's stealth matting/skin were also stolen.)

 

 

I got doubts about the radars, the Chinese already deploying AESA technologies since 2006, and around 2010 they are already finishing touches on their own AESA radars for the J-10s and J-11s, suggesting they were already in development for some time before that.    Data gives you heads up on the anticipated ranges of your potential opponents have, what frequencies they are using which means they can set their ECM for it.  

 

Composite is where I would mostly like think espionage would happen.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts
2 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

It's indicative of the Russians trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to high AoA envelope performance and super-maneuverability with a level of stealth that's actually useful.

 

The three countries solutions to high alpha are quite different from each other, I would say, as the US relies on vectored thrust, the Russians a combination of leading edge surface that act like canards and vectored thrust, and the Chinese going for a delta-canard configuration.  The Chinese has been publishing papers since the 2000 something about the relationship between canards and straked inlets for vortice generation, leading to observers to conclude and right so, this is the direction of their next generation fighter projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,165 posts
60 battles
4 hours ago, The_first_harbinger said:

I have no sympathies on the military ambition of China, but I ask of you to stop pass on the false claims from wherever you acquired them. The work of those technicians and the challenges they have to overcome are not to be insulted by any media or critics who made up the news to appease the populus. My father once worked for the Boeing plant, and based on my limited knowledge from my short periods of internship I can tell you that the J-20 project are too aerodynamically different and different from design designation with F-35 project to be related with F-35. J-20 is a pure heavy air-supremacy fighter, sacrificing partial manoeuvrability characteristics for high altitude-speed performance, with not a single pound of weight wasted on ground pounding. F-35 is a multi-role, single engine mid-low altitude fighter, with its focus and strength vastly different with the J-20. The F-35 can never out-fought, nor was designed to fight, fighters like the J-20, we have the Raptors for that. My father and his colleagues pays great respect to the whoever is struggling in China for their country, and my father always taught me to put aside our prejudices and at least view them as worthy opponents, if not colleagues in pursuit of perfection.

 

Next time you want to include words like "stolen from the F-35 project" I would kindly ask of you to shove it up your ugly aft.

Indeed, truer words never spoken. And by this time around, it's a matter of time for anyone to show any major powers in this world with some dignity, like it or not. It's about time to show some respect to China just as much as to Russia, and to a lesser extend, India. Maybe someday both Japan & Korea will emerge as one of them for real too, but time will tell if they allow to.

People can hold grudge and hate it all they want, but we all can't lie to ourselves forever, because things keep changing over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
3 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

 

I got doubts about the radars, the Chinese already deploying AESA technologies since 2006, and around 2010 they are already finishing touches on their own AESA radars for the J-10s and J-11s, suggesting they were already in development for some time before that.    Data gives you heads up on the anticipated ranges of your potential opponents have, what frequencies they are using which means they can set their ECM for it.  

 

Composite is where I would mostly like think espionage would happen.

The Chinese have had notorious difficulties with designing indigenous turbine power plants that are usable in today's high energy envelope for combat aircraft and the F135 is one of the most powerful turbines in the world. It makes perfect sense why they would steal information on it. (Since Russia is playing hard-ball with sharing their turbine technology with China and would be a lot more quick to use military force if they discovered they'd been stolen from.) The US also has the best PESA and AESA tech in the world and they deploy it the most (contrary to what you have said previously, the US has the most active platforms that deploy AESA), the APG-81 being even more advanced then the Raptor's APG-77 (Which in turn fed technology back into the Raptor as the APG-77v1). So again, it would make perfect sense for the Chinese to steal the secrets on the APG-81 to add to their own J-20/31 development (Since the J-20 is intended as a multirole like the F-35 and not simply an Air Dominance fighter like the Raptor.)

1 hour ago, Xero_Snake said:

Indeed, truer words never spoken. And by this time around, it's a matter of time for anyone to show any major powers in this world with some dignity, like it or not. It's about time to show some respect to China just as much as to Russia, and to a lesser extend, India. Maybe someday both Japan & Korea will emerge as one of them for real too, but time will tell if they allow to.

People can hold grudge and hate it all they want, but we all can't lie to ourselves forever, because things keep changing over time.

I'll respect China when it stops stealing and copying from everybody else, especially the USA. Until then, it can go rot in a hole in the 9th level of Hell.

3 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

The three countries solutions to high alpha are quite different from each other, I would say, as the US relies on vectored thrust, the Russians a combination of leading edge surface that act like canards and vectored thrust, and the Chinese going for a delta-canard configuration.  The Chinese has been publishing papers since the 2000 something about the relationship between canards and straked inlets for vortice generation, leading to observers to conclude and right so, this is the direction of their next generation fighter projects.

The USA has already done all 3 with it's X-Fighter program since the 80s and into the 90s. The Pentagon has rightly decided that the singular use of just thrust vectoring was all it wanted in pursuit of the next gen of Stealth Aircraft and even then, that was after the ground work had been laid down by the Nighthawk and Spirit. Any additional compromises made to increase agility for WVR was not worth the loss in stealth performance against possible future hostile platforms. (The F-35 is a completely different story of terrible compromises made to satisfy all buyers, the ASTOVL would of been a better horse. Which is funny, because the J-20 looks exactly like the ASTOVL. I wonder why....)

astovl-force-wind-tunnel-model.jpg

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[WOLF7]
Members
138 posts
8 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

We haven't had a proper cruiser since the Long Beach. The Arsenal Ship would of been pretty awesome had it survived the end of the Cold War.

I think the Virginia Class were pretty capable.

 

Switching gears almost every missile in Ddg or CG's VLS can be used as an anti-ship missile. Hell look at how Raytheon repurposed the SM-6 albeit it is rather pricey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts
2 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

The Chinese have had notorious difficulties with designing indigenous turbine power plants that are usable in today's high energy envelope for combat aircraft and the F135 is one of the most powerful turbines in the world. It makes perfect sense why they would steal information on it. (Since Russia is playing hard-ball with sharing their turbine technology with China and would be a lot more quick to use military force if they discovered they'd been stolen from.) The US also has the best PESA and AESA tech in the world and they deploy it the most (contrary to what you have said previously, the US has the most active platforms that deploy AESA), the APG-81 being even more advanced then the Raptor's APG-77 (Which in turn fed technology back into the Raptor as the APG-77v1). So again, it would make perfect sense for the Chinese to steal the secrets on the APG-81 to add to their own J-20/31 development (Since the J-20 is intended as a multirole like the F-35 and not simply an Air Dominance fighter like the Raptor.)

I'll respect China when it stops stealing and copying from everybody else, especially the USA. Until then, it can go rot in a hole in the 9th level of Hell.

The USA has already done all 3 with it's X-Fighter program since the 80s and into the 90s. The Pentagon has rightly decided that the singular use of just thrust vectoring was all it wanted in pursuit of the next gen of Stealth Aircraft and even then, that was after the ground work had been laid down by the Nighthawk and Spirit. Any additional compromises made to increase agility for WVR was not worth the loss in stealth performance against possible future hostile platforms. (The F-35 is a completely different story of terrible compromises made to satisfy all buyers, the ASTOVL would of been a better horse. Which is funny, because the J-20 looks exactly like the ASTOVL. I wonder why....)

astovl-force-wind-tunnel-model.jpg

 

While it may make sense to obtain information on the most advanced engines, the Chinese apparently perfected their WS-10A by 2011 in which case they are able to shift production of their J-11s to the new engine, and then as quotas grew, to the J-10.  However, all these advanced engines made by PW and GE have the same core shared by their commercial jet engines, which by the way, the Chinese already have plenty of with all the airlines sold to them.  It is said that the WS-10A resembles more in the core of these engines.

 

As for AESAs I am certainly referring to naval ones, as all 052C, 052D and now the 055 are equipped with AESA.  And by the way so is the Liaoning and the Type 001A carrier.  055 even features two bands of AESA.  The PLA has adopted a number of AESAs for its own purposes, mostly for artillery spotting and gun laying.
 

As for the  X programs and in particular the X-31 Super Maneuverability demonstrator, the J-20 does not resemble this, aside from the general delta-canard configuration.  The X-31's canards are too far from the main wing that it is mainly only for pitch control, where J-20's canards are close enough that the vortices formed on the inner strake of the canard would flow over the main wing, while the air flow on both the canards and the main wing are close enough to interact with one another.  Vortices would form on the root on the inlet, root of the canard/strake of the inlet, root of the main wing.  In essence, X-31 achieves super maneuverability through the combination of thrust vectoring and canard pitch control, whereas the J-20, which at this moment does not have thrust vectoring yet, achieves super maneuverability and high alpha control through multiple stable vortice layers that are being generated through multiple points in the leading edge of the aircraft. And while we have delta canards (J-10, Lavi, X-31, Typhoon, Rafale) none of them has combined that with a straked diverterless inlet that works in conjunction, not separately for this purpose.

 

 

be3804123c746fed3e3c53f81769077a.jpg

J-20_at_Airshow_China_2016.jpg

J20.jpg

a332907a54eee4a587be441728e11fe6.jpg

4629093.jpg

100968main_X-31_lineart.jpg

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts

That is not the X-31 I linked, that is the ASTOVL. The J-20 is an exact copy of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts

 

 

As far as the ASTOVL goes,  that does not look alike in the planform and of the wings, especially with the aspect ratios.  Note the diamond shaped wings and canards.

 

 

image009.jpg

JAST ASTOVL.JPG

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
6 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

 

As far as the ASTOVL goes,  that does not look alike in the planform and of the wings, especially with the aspect ratios.  Note the diamond shaped wings and canards.

 

 

image009.jpg

JAST ASTOVL.JPG

That's still not the ASTOVL design I linked, are you being purposefully dense here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts
Just now, TornadoADV said:

That's still not the ASTOVL design I linked, are you being purposefully dense here?

 

The design you linked does not show the planform properly.  In fact, your picture shows it has diamond shaped wings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
1 minute ago, Eisennagel said:

 

The design you linked does not show the planform properly.  In fact, your picture shows it has diamond shaped wings.

Let's just cut the [edited] here, it's frankly insulting and I expected more from you.

y6TG7sU.jpg

McDonnell Douglas LITERALLY designed the J-20 before the Chinese did for the ASTOVL program in the late 80s/early 90s that eventually got merged in the JSF program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts

 

 

This picture is probably a better one since it shows a straked inlet with canards.  However, many ideas tend to be developed in parallel.   It still however, shows a high aspect diamond wing that's more for maneuverbility but not for high speed cruising.

 

Quite frankly you don't even seem to know what the sharp points in the inlets would do, how vortices act with the main wing to help generate lift and maintain plane control in high alpha.

 

A-few-improvements-to-the-design.jpg

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
Just now, Eisennagel said:

 

 

This picture is probably a better one since it shows a straked inlet with canards.  However, many ideas tend to be developed in parallel. 

 

 

A-few-improvements-to-the-design.jpg

Your level of denial of how badly China copies everything is frankly astounding and a little sickening. You have photographic proof in the form of a scale wind tunnel test model that a US company designed the J-20 in the form of an ASTOVL prototype and all you do is stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and scream really loud. Just stop. :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts

 

Do you have proof that they copied from this wind tunnel model directly and it isn't a parallel development?  Copiers only copy the successful models, not failed proposals.  The J-20 evolved from the J-10, you don't need to go out of your way when you can evolve from your own model.

 

This JF-17 shows the difference those intakes would make when it comes to vortice layers.

jf17-turkey-05.jpg

Chengdu-J-10A-PL-11+PL-8-2S.jpg

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts
6 minutes ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Do you have proof that they copied from this wind tunnel model directly and it isn't a parallel development?  Copiers only copy the successful models, not failed proposals.  The J-20 evolved from the J-10, you don't need to go out of your way when you can evolve from your own model.

 

This JF-17 shows the difference those intakes would make when it comes to vortice layers.

jf17-turkey-05.jpg

Chengdu-J-10A-PL-11+PL-8-2S.jpg

Are you seriously suggesting that China has been developing something like the J-20 since 1989? And it's just serendipity that the Chinese design is nearly an exact if not AN exact copy of what McDonnell Douglas developed in secret until the ASTOVL program was declassified in the late 90s? :cap_fainting:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts

 

The main similarity between the J-10 and the F-35 are the inlets.  However, the US tends to prefer diamond or semi delta shaped wings as being more suited for their mission profiles.  The Chinese tend to prefer lower aspect delta wings, which also emphasizes high speed interception.  

J-20_Stealth_Fighter_MiG_Comparison.jpg

main-qimg-fd8dab2a2cb75742039d155b121f4b03-c.jpg

chengdu_j_10_vigorous_dragon_by_bagera3005.png

f35-f22.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts
4 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

Are you seriously suggesting that China has been developing something like the J-20 since 1989? And it's just serendipity that the Chinese design is nearly an exact if not AN exact copy of what McDonnell Douglas developed in secret until the ASTOVL program was declassified in the late 90s? :cap_fainting:

 

Who would want to "copy" a failed proposal for a project?  That won't make sense.  That would be a tremendously risky investment.  The ASTOVL has many proposed designs that cover quite a gamut of plane designs, and in the end, after evaluating in wind tunnel tests would choose only one.  Whatever they choose to be the eventual F-35 is NOT the delta-canard, which puts it in the failed category.  

 

The Chinese or more specifically, Chengdu Aircraft Company, are more willing to go with delta-canards because they have extensive experience making these, compared to Lockheed Martin and McDonnell Douglas.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
706
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,164 posts

We're not comparing the F-35, we're comparing the ASTOVL to the J-20. Or more specifically, McDonnell Douglas's prototype it submitted to the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
11,668 posts
4 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

We're not comparing the F-35, we're comparing the ASTOVL to the J-20. Or more specifically, McDonnell Douglas's prototype it submitted to the competition.

 

Yes I know that.  Which still has diamond high aspect wings.  Better for low speed handling, especially for carrier landings.  The J-20's wings are nothing like that.

 

Note the MiG 1.44, that is another sign of parallel development, again, the strakes in the canard roots are meant to create vortices.

Edited by Eisennagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×