Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Will Counter Chinese Arms Buildup
NYTimes.com ^ | ELISABETH BUMILLER

Posted on 01/09/2011 3:28:04 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind

U.S. Will Counter Chinese Arms Buildup

“I’ve been concerned about the development of the antiship cruise and ballistic missiles ever since I took this job,” he added. “We knew they were working on a stealth aircraft. I think that what we’ve seen is that they may be somewhat further ahead in the development of that aircraft than our intelligence had earlier predicted.”

Mr. Gates said he hoped his talks with Chinese leaders would reduce the need for more American weaponry in the Pacific. He also said that if Chinese leaders considered the United States a declining power because of the financial crisis, they were wrong.

“I’ve watched this sort of cyclical view of American decline come around two or three times, perhaps most dramatically in the latter half of the 1970s,” Mr. Gates said. “And my general line for those both at home and around the world who think the U.S. is in decline is that history’s dustbins are filled with countries that underestimated the resilience of the United States.”

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans; Science
KEYWORDS: armsrace; china; coldwar; military
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Just days before Gates's visit to China, J-20 is revealed:

A Chinese space-aeroplane, which is simliar to NASA's latest X-37B, has claimed to have its first flight successfully last year, according to state-owned news source in China reported yesterday:

Looks like cold-war/arms race II has begun.

1 posted on 01/09/2011 3:28:07 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
we have to respond appropriately with our own programs

Yeah, we might send a squad of homos to whine at them.

2 posted on 01/09/2011 3:32:30 PM PST by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
He also said that if Chinese leaders considered the United States a declining power because of the financial crisis, they were wrong.

Oh, they have MUCH MORE than that to make them consider us a declining power.

3 posted on 01/09/2011 3:36:41 PM PST by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind

Bejing is a perfect target - explain that to the Chinese. One A-Bomb no more Bejing.

Next idea...?


4 posted on 01/09/2011 3:37:32 PM PST by TNoldman (Call 1911 not 911!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TNoldman

So is LA.

Next idea...?


5 posted on 01/09/2011 3:43:41 PM PST by traumer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind

Øbama will take care of this as soon as he gets home from his 4,857th vacation.


6 posted on 01/09/2011 3:45:17 PM PST by rdl6989 (January 20, 2013- The end of an error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traumer
So is LA.

Why would China nuke part of Mexico?

7 posted on 01/09/2011 3:48:15 PM PST by SIDENET ("If that's your best, your best won't do." -Dee Snider)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
“I’ve watched this sort of cyclical view of American decline come around two or three times, perhaps most dramatically in the latter half of the 1970s,” Mr. Gates said

Sorry Mr. Gates, but bad analogy. The 70's had Reagan around the corner to fix the "hollow Army" and the deteriorating Air Force and Navy.

Gates has set America on the path to a second rate military. We will soon be at as much a disadvantage with adversaries like China as we were in the 1930's with Germany and Japan. And no Ronald Reagan is there to ride to the rescue.

8 posted on 01/09/2011 4:17:33 PM PST by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traumer

If we are lucky china will nuke CA anyway.


9 posted on 01/09/2011 5:32:26 PM PST by DirtyPigpen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; ...

And yet Gates just advocated a $78 billion defense budget cut, and has consistently and persistently opposed funding new ships, new aircraft, new you name it. Thanks Allthatucantleavebehind.


10 posted on 01/09/2011 6:14:26 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
"Looks like cold-war/arms race II has begun"

This one is easy...much easier than the first one.

The Chinese can't even build a jet engine that works reliably...or a rifle that should <1MOA.

Nothing they do is "precision".

Effective missiles and fighter aircraft are all about precision.

11 posted on 01/09/2011 6:20:06 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traumer
"So is LA. Next idea...?"

The Chinese nuke force is less capable than Britain, Israel or France.

While they are building some land-mobile ICBMs...they only have about 20 in service that could reach a West Coast city. They have about another 20 liquid-fueled ICBMs that could reach the US but they take about an hour to fuel and are thus simply targets.

And, if you stick your ear to the ground you can hear their nuke subs scratching around in the Yellow Sea.

From what is know now we could either preempt Chinese nuke action...or shoot down the 10 or so missiles they send toward our West Coast.

While the Chinese have potential, the don't have the necessary skills to pose an existential threat to the US.

However, the US could eliminate them as a country in about an hour.

12 posted on 01/09/2011 6:27:39 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DirtyPigpen
"If we are lucky china will nuke CA anyway"

I resent that. There are MILLIONS of good conservatives in CA.

Do you wish death upon 38million of your fellow citizens?

13 posted on 01/09/2011 6:29:42 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

In your expert opinion do you feel our nuclear sub fleet is still preeminent, and thus far unaffected in terms of ouright cuts and/or failure to upgrade technology, by the Commie Commander in Chief?

I have always viewed them as our ultimate trump card.


14 posted on 01/09/2011 6:43:49 PM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Obviously Mr. Gates is not so confident like an average joe. China's J-20 prototype with their WS-15/WS-10G prototype jet engines (the lighter nozzles), in contrast to one with the good old russian al-31f engines (the darker nozzles): Judging by this rate, the probablity is high that China will pretty much match everything the USA military will have technology-wise by 2020. And I agree with you, this cold war won't last long, since neither sides want to sell their own blood and bones for a hollow "military superiorirty" title like the Russians did back then. I expect this time, when one of the two sides, figures out that there is no chance to win the arms race, they will simply give up and accept as a second-rate power more gracefully, rather than bankruptcy like the USSR. Thus I would expect this cold war will last about ~20 years (e.g. before 2030) to has a clear winner, and I certainly won't place my bet on the US of A.
15 posted on 01/09/2011 7:01:42 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy
"In your expert opinion do you feel our nuclear sub fleet is still preeminent"

Yes, still preeminent.

that's not to say we haven't been hurt by cuts or that our fleet is not aging.

It DOES say the the Trident Fleet of 14 Boomers (3 of which are at sea a ready to launch at any time) and the now converted 4 SSGNs are the most effective Strategic Deterrent in the world today. I sure hope we're fixin to lay the shell of the next generation soon because some of these boats are 30yrs old.

One of the 3 SSBNs can carry 24 missiles with a 7,500mile range and each of those missile can carry up to 12 W88 warheads (475kt, or 50 times bigger than Hiroshima) 288warheads x 50 = >15,000 Hiroshimas.

There has never been a failed launch of a Trident missile from the time the first one became operational. They've been tested over 30 times.

Additionally, it's STILL the quietest SSBN on the planet and quieter than everything other than a few of DE boats and US Attack boats.

We also have the proven technology to get launch orders to them while they are submerged and on patrol.

16 posted on 01/09/2011 7:09:08 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

One mission of Gates’s visit to Beijing is trying to settle a deal with China on nuke weapon development.

I certainly wouldn’t be very sure that China only have 10 or so warheads can reach USA as of now, like some of the military fans here would rather to believe.

This is especially considering the fact Gates want the nuke deal; the scale of China’s military research and spending; the rate of China’s convential weaponary productions as well as the accuracy of the information gotten by the US intel, or rather the lack of it, on the military issues on China.


17 posted on 01/09/2011 7:09:20 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind

chicom bump for later.......


18 posted on 01/09/2011 7:21:50 PM PST by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
Lemme see.

Rubber coating on a bird that has a similar shape to the F-22 does NOT a Raptor make. Ours are in service.

Radar, ECM, Targeting & Tracking software and superior armament does.

Looking at these birds one can see little more than targets...their ass-end gives it all away.

Our existing Eagles would have no problem with these guys.

19 posted on 01/09/2011 7:25:28 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Thanks.

Much appreciated.


20 posted on 01/09/2011 7:32:09 PM PST by EyeGuy (RaceMarxist Obama: The Politics of Vengeance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: traumer

“So is LA.

Next idea...?”

No, not LA. .. but what is the next brilliant idea that the Chicom will release.


21 posted on 01/09/2011 7:40:41 PM PST by TNoldman (Call 1911 not 911!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Are you sure they lag behind in these areas?

Aerodynamic layout/airframe is just more visualized comparing to the advancement of electronics.

I can show you many Chinese academic research papers on the advancements in these area (radar, ECMs, weaponarys) as well.

Pretty much the only thing China lags is the jet-engine part (which is the only things they sign new orders from Russia since 2005), but even in this special area, they are catching up quickly, with the brand-new jet eninges installed on the one brand-new J-20 prototype.

Btw, as for the airframe, being stealthy is pretty much decided by the airframe, you cannot turn a F-15 into a F-22 by some magical coatings.


22 posted on 01/09/2011 7:44:13 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
"Btw, as for the airframe, being stealthy is pretty much decided by the airframe, you cannot turn a F-15 into a F-22 by some magical coatings."

So true. And that's my point.

Existing Eagles with superior avionics and weapons systems can still defeat EVERY SINGLE FIGHTER IN THE WORLD (Except Raptor). Stealth is not necessary when you can see them before they see you...and your missiles have a 90+% PK at 1.5 times the range.

We have far more reason to be concerned about Russian aircraft and they are a full generation behind us. The are building aircraft with F-15 level kill capabilities today. Over 90% of Chinese fighters are little better than an F4.

23 posted on 01/09/2011 8:06:11 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Again, empty chants.

One primary reason China stops ordering any flankers is because its rather one-sided in the internal military excerise where Su-27/Su-30 get pwned by Chinese J-10.

I can cited many official new sources about the very poor performance of Su-27/30 when it faces J-10 (also bulit by CAC):

For instance:

1 J-10 vs 4 Su-27s, 4:0
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/2009/1105/1664.htm

2 J-10s vs 4 Su-27s, again, 4:0
http://dh.jgjy.gov.cn/shownews.asp?news_id=1873

6 J-10s vs 6 Su-30s, 5:0, the only Su-30 surivived was driven by an highly experienced Su-30 pilot(vice commander of the only SU-30 division in China Navy), and he narrowly escaped the hunts.
http://news.ifeng.com/mil/2/detail_2010_11/15/3110056_0.shtml

The only thing prevent China from shutting-down SU-27 productions lines is that, as a twin-engine heavy fighter, SU-27/30 get much better range comparing to J-10, which is quite critical for PLAAF especially considering the hot spots in East China Sea and South China sea, however the situation changes completely once China get their J-20 ready.

Actually, just about J-10 to finish its flight test and enter service, there were quite many airforce guys in China prefer cancelling the J-10 programme all-together and save the money for more Su-27s orders.

Guess what make them changing their minds?

The Lead project director of J-10, Song Wen-cong (who is now the vice-project director of J-20), asked the Airforce to pick their best pilots with SU-27 to have military excerise with J-10, which is driven by the test pilots of J-10.

And yet-to-be-matured J-10 beat Su-27 in one-on-one air-combat by 8:1, thats why laterly the airforce shut down the liscenc production of Su-27 completely.


24 posted on 01/09/2011 8:21:56 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind

Considering the fact the convential airframe F-22 is not very good at air-combat comparing with the ground-breaking unique airframe of J-20 (lifting-body co-plane canards blending with leading edges), when a F-22 is facing a J-20, the result may not much different than trying to pitting a SU-27 against a J-10.

And since according to USAF’s internal military excerise, you get something like 1:144 when trying to pitting F-15s against F-22, let along the dog-fight/air-combat monster J-20, I would expect it would be quite a bit one-sided when we trying to using F-15s against J-20.


25 posted on 01/09/2011 8:28:59 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
"Again, empty chants"

Back at you buddy.

The first time a Chinese designed and built aircraft shoots down a US designed and built aircraft be sure to get back to me. I'll eat my hat.

In fact Chinese aircraft won't even come out to play tag when US aircraft are in the YELLOW SEA!

They won't even send out their best to confront US Aircraft which have been flying for 30 years.

26 posted on 01/09/2011 8:44:06 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Yellow sea is not belong to China, and the US Navy screamed they will enter yellow sea since probably a year ago, only after the Noko repeatedly kills quite a few Soko the supposed- US army at Korea get enough nerve to conduct quite some meaningless military excerises as pathetic anwsers to the Noko’s bombardment on S.Korea’s village.

So I don’t believe there is much to brag here from the US point of view, call me when they finally get enough nerve to do something that matters, so far, as of now, looks to me they have barked alot through.


27 posted on 01/09/2011 8:54:31 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind

AYBABTU


28 posted on 01/09/2011 9:10:25 PM PST by Stentor ( "All cults of personality begin as high drama and end as low comedy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

What do you think of the Type 096 SSBN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_096_submarine under development by China?


29 posted on 01/09/2011 9:31:09 PM PST by Kennard (io)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I know there are good people in CA. Can’t anyone take a joke anymore?
Everyones panties seem to be always in a wad.
I lived in CA for a few years and I am glad to be out of there.
I see why they call it the land of fuits and nuts.


30 posted on 01/09/2011 9:35:15 PM PST by DirtyPigpen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
"What do you think of the Type 096 SSBN"

It's hard to tell until the put to sea the fleet gets to listen to them. It's all about acoustics...and reliability.

Missiles are secondary as most boomers that can be heard...are followed.

If you hear them open the tubes you have to shoot them. However, if you can't hear them you can't follow them.

The 096 is likely a generation ahead of the 094 and a generation behind the Trident...roughly a Poseidon III class boat.

Again, you don't know for sure until they put to sea with a full complement.

31 posted on 01/09/2011 9:39:14 PM PST by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Thank you.

It strikes me that the best the Chinese can come up with to wave in Gates's face prior to his visit is a fighter under development, rather than a new SSBN. I know little about the subject and rely on others like you, but this seems to be telling.

32 posted on 01/09/2011 9:47:14 PM PST by Kennard (io)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

I would say SSBN is not a priority for China.

Judging by China’s location, there is very little point to build a large fleet of SSBNs.

Thats because:

From China, the minimum range required for a land-based ICBM from China that can cover the entire USA will be around 11000 km.

However, for a submarine-based ICBM, the minimum range to cover USA would be no less than 12500 km.

So China’s SLBM required much longer range to reach USA.

And you have to consider the fact, the sea near China’s border is not some deep sea like the case of USA.

Which means, to give a creditable submarine-based nuclear strike force, in theory China has to build much larger SSBNs comparing to USA to accommodate longer-ranged bigger ballastic missiles.

However, the averge depth of the sea (east china sea, yellow sea, etc) around China is only about 50 meter or so, huge SSBN will not be an option since its hard to move and easy to be spotted by anti-submarine methods.

Therefore, for China, SSBN is not their priority, at least before they get Taiwan,land-based mobile ICBMs are far more feasible and cost-efficient.


33 posted on 01/09/2011 10:42:10 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind; Mariner
Ridiculous. You claim Mariner is making empty 'chants' (????) yet you go ahead and post links to information that has been the brunt of jokes since it came out? That is just ludicrous. That information has been torn apart for some time now, as well as other Chi-Com 'data' that came out at the same time that tried to state that the J-10 will be better than the Eurofighter Typhoon (yet they obviously forgot to take into consideration aspects like superior avionics and RADAR, superior supersonic persistence, superior engines, superior T/W, superior wing loading, superior processing, superior maneuverability in both the supersonic and subsonic envelop, superior MMI and targeting support, superior materials ....in essence, every single aspect is superior ....yet the Chinese sources were claiming a single-engined F-16 wannabe with inferior avionics and major vibration issues is the next big thing). Your 'many official new sources' (I do not know whether you meant 'new' sources or 'news' sources) are simply Chinese cr@p. That same J-10 with intense vibration issues, with engines (WS-10) that are ridiculously unreliable and require frequent overhaul (amazing the Chinese are taking so long to copy a Russian engine they have had for years), and the like. Yes, when the J-10 matures it will be a good aircraft - currently it is basically at 4th generation level, once it is mature it may be at 4.5 generation level. However, it will never be a Eurofighter, a SU-35, a Rafale, a Gripen NG, a F/A-18E/F ....let alone true 5th-Gen aircraft.

Also, China is making a big mistake. It should just have let the US to sit on its laurels. All this talk of ballistic-missile-this and stealth-fighter-that simply makes the US rouse itself, and once that happens China will never be able to catch up. The US was working on stealth concepts in the 70s, and has already gone through 3 generations of stealth fighters (the Have-Blue/F-117 types, the B-2 Spirit type, and now the F-22/F-35 type). China and Russia are only now coming up with their own systems, and at least when it comes to Russia they are able to deliver on engines and RADAR far better than the ChiComs. If the US starts cranking out technologies, China will never be able to catch up. Think of it ....it cannot match Russian engine production techniques of the 1980s, it cannot produce a PESA RADAR similar to the Soviet Zaslon produced in the mid-80s, and as for the anti-ship Ballistic missile China is crowing about ...the Soviets first tested an anti-ship ballistic missile in 1974, the R-27K Korabelnaya-4K18 (SSN-13) was operational in the 70s. So, while the Chinese have come a long way due to the reformist vision of Deng Xiaoping, they are not even at Russia/Western Europe level let alone that of the US. Yet all they do is prode and poke the US with all these 'new' weapons that are mostly just for show (ask yourself ...for a prototype, interest paint scheme on the J-20).

Furthermore, the US has very mature systems, and it is all about systems and not platforms. The new SU-35S fighter is a more superior platform than the F-15, but one has to look at the entire spectrum of systems. For instance ...that 'official' story of J-10s 'beating' SU-30s and being capable of defeating Typhoons. Well, take those same J-10s and fly them against Indian SU-30MKIs and Russian SU-27s, and against RAF or Luftwaffe Typhoons, and let's see what the results are.

China has come a long way. However, as it is, this is tantamount to a kid with a fast tricycle boasting of how he can stand up to a man with a Lamborghini. China has several decades of trying to copy Russian and Western Europe technologies before it can try to stand up to the US of circa 2010/11, and because of what it has been doing to seem stronger than it is it has virtually guaranteed that when it is at the level of current Russia/Wesern Europe, that the US will also have done much advancement.

However, it can always release 'official new sources' (sp) that show how their new J-44XYZ can defeat American hypersonic wave-riders .....1123456789 to 0.0987654321. Or how this 'inspired MiG 1/42/1.44' ....ooops, sorry ...the 100% totally indigenous Chinese J-20 (just as the 100% local Lavi ..I mean J-10, or the 100% local project-33 MiG concept ...I mean the JF-17) are Raptor beaters. Please, I would take a F-15K or a SU-35S over the J-20 any day of the weak.

34 posted on 01/09/2011 11:46:18 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

Any day of the weak = any day of the week ....although in China’s case ‘weak’ also applies.


35 posted on 01/09/2011 11:51:38 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I don’t believe any news sources in China suggesting J-10 is superior to EF2000 in air-combat since the two have not even met yet, the only thing we know for sure is that J-10 beat Su-27/Su-30 very easily and consistently in almost all air-combats in China’s internal military excreises, and I provided the official links to prove that.

Actually, according to the pilot of PLAAF, nowdays the military excreises, PLAAF usually pit more Su-27 against fewer J-10 to level the groud, and the PLAAF pilots claimed when Su-27 faces J-10, its like Su-27 fall into a death trap, it cannot out-manuerve the J-10 and it cannot even retreat succesfully.

Which explained why Chinese show little interests in accquiring any further Su-27/30/35s from Russia despite of how big a hype Russian sources created to show how Chinese want their Su-27s etc.

It is rather amusing to know, just days before J-20 revealed, there are still some Russian news sources claimed China want their Su-35 now and will buy their PAK-FA after 2025.

Btw,some technique background:

Afterall, J-10’s airframe is a typical short-distance-coupling canard layout, the only other producted fighter that has this comparable layout is the French Raflafe, this airframe has superior dog-fight performance at the expense of far more complicate flight-control system and slightly-less top-speed, comparing to long-distance-coupling canards.

Thats why I am not surprised at all when rumors say that French bird beat the crap out of EuroFighter 2000 in the interal military excresise, even through tech-wise, the two should be at roughly the same level.

As for J-20’s airframe, its far better type of enhanced canard airframe (enhanced with blended strakes and huge lifting-body), wind-tunnel tests suggest such airframe offers 40%+ lifting force/tonque over even the next-best option (e.g. enhanced short-distance coupling canards), so I certainly wouldn’t worry about the performance of this monster.


36 posted on 01/10/2011 12:35:12 AM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Oh, btw, I am sure China have copied/stolen a lot of Russian's design to make a proper 5th generation fighter which looks like this:
37 posted on 01/10/2011 12:35:52 AM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind; Mariner
First of all, I do not need your 'technique background.' Also, trying to compare the J-10 to the Rafale because they are both ...what did you say ...'a typical short-distance-coupling canard layout' ....is ludicrous. By the way, in the future call it 'close-coupled canard' not whatever the heck you called it. The Rafale is a twin-engined highly advanced system that is basically a French version of the Eurofighter Typhoon apart from a few areas such as carrier requirements and canard placement. Comparing it to a plane like the J-10, which (again) is a single-engine plane, with poorer T/W, poorer wing-loading, lower thrust, lower maneuverability in the supersonic and subsonic regimes, poor avionics, poor ECM/ECCM, poor MMI, etc is a joke. Even the coupling of the canards is not even the same to be technically honest ....otherwise the J-10 wouldn't have its vibration issues now, would it. Just because they both have what you call 'typical short-distance-coupling canard layout' doesn't mean they are in any way or form similar. Comparing a J-10 to the Rafale because they both have close-coupled canards means that I can say that the WW2 Spitfire is like the F-22 Raptor because they both have wings!

I've never understood why the Chinese (and I assume you are Chinese - joined Dec 31 2010, weird/convoluted English syntax, masturbatory fantasies about the J-10 ....) think their copies are in any way comparable to advanced Western designs. The J-10 is simply a design influenced by the Lavi, and it (nor the Lavi) can never be compared to a twin-engined advanced 4.5 Gen Western fighter like the Rafale.

As for the rumors of the Rafale trouncing the Typhoon. Well, the Typhoon pilots also talked about that information, and it was quite balanced. No plane 'defeated' the other. The rumors of what you call an 'interal' military excercise had been published in a magazine, and once more information came out following the extrapolated talk of certain defeats it showed the initial statements were ...well ...'enhanced.' Although that doesn't matter ...even if a single Rafale had defeated a combined force of all Raptors and all Typhoons in the globe, it doesn't mean a thing when it comes to the J-10. The J-10, when it matures, will be more comparable to a Block 50 F-16 (note: when it is mature). It will never be comparable to a Rafale or a Typhoon. The airframes and innards simply do not allow it too.

Thus, apologies to your Chicom sensitivities ...but the Chengdu J-10 will never be more, at its best in another decade or so, than a suped-up F-16.

Rafale:

J-10:

As for the Russians vs the Chinese ....well, wake me up when the Chinese can make a functional copy of a 80s Russian engine design that doesn't require overhaul every 30 hours. For that matter, when the Chinese can come up with something that is not a copy of some existing design or concept. It is interesting that the Russians decided not to go ahead with the MiG-1.42/1.44 concept even after money started flowing in from gas/oil, yet over a decade later the Chinese are wetting themselves over the J-20.

Graphic of what the MiG-1.42/1.44 would have looked like when completed. Yet the Russians discarded the design. Well, it is good enough for their southern neighbors though, hah!

You state the the J-20 has '40%+ lifting force/tonque' (huh ...tonque???? LOL) ....interesting you have such information. Did your task-master at Chengdu send you over on the 31st of December 2010 to sprinkle information on the J-20? If so, thank him ...but ask for more advanced English diction lessons. Already the Pentagon has responded on what they think of the J-20. They are not worried. Please also tell your head of department at Chengdu that the folks at FR require someone more capable and with greater 'technique background' (whatever that is) than you. After all, all that you are leaving behind dear Allthatucantleavebehind is simply laughter. Guess you are one of those Chinese fanboys claiming the J-20 is nearly as stealthy as the Raptor because its cockpit looks like the Raptor, huh. After all, you just claimed the J-10 is comparable to a Rafale because they both have close-coupled canards (or, to use your own words, something called 'typical short-distance-coupling canard layout' based on your great 'technique background').

Thanks for the laugh. Now go get some dim sum.

38 posted on 01/10/2011 1:21:33 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

I am very impressed that you still believe in whatever Russians say.

I heard Russians even enterainingly claimed PAK-FA is 20 years ahead of J-20, LOL.

But I guess, in the end, pictures worth thousands words, so I bet we all know which one is better.

No wonder you are very insecure about PAK-FA, however I think by keeping telling to yourself that “PAK-FA is far ahead of J-20 blah blah blah” maybe eventually one day you may even believe your own words, hehehe.

Anyway, lets move on, stop wasting time on topic like PAK-FA vs J-20, its meaningless because we all have seen the pictures and we all know the answer, just someone prefer to remain in denial at the moment, thus no point to discuss anymore here, hehehe.


39 posted on 01/10/2011 1:32:51 AM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
No, they did not copy that Russian design. The Chinese copied a much older less capable one. I introduce to you the MiG-MFI (1.42/1.44):

Notice some similarities to the 'original' Chengdu J-20.

40 posted on 01/10/2011 1:35:08 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
Goodness, I do not care about the PakFa ...and anyways, it is less capable than the Raptor. There is no nation comoing up with a manned platform anywhere as good as the F-22 Raptor. Interestingly I did not even bring up an issue of PakFa vs J-20 ....I was talking about the J-10 as compared to the Rafale, and about Chinese tendencies to make their 'original' creations seem so good when they cannot even make a simple jet engine that works as it is supposed to. I guess you had no response on how an anemic single-engined 4th gen vibrating cr@p like the J-10 could be compared to an advanced Western airframe like the Rafale ...apart from both having canards.

I was serious though about Chengdu bringing someone with greater 'technique information' than you. Maybe several pay grades above you.

41 posted on 01/10/2011 1:40:12 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
Hmmm, nice try: Does this looks like a MiG-1.44 to you?
42 posted on 01/10/2011 2:42:27 AM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind; Mariner
So says the guy who compared the J-10 to the Rafale because they both have that convoluted term you used for close-coupled canards. Oh, and yes ...it does look like the MiG-MFI. The only major difference is that the intakes are on the side rather than the bottom. Just as the 'original' J-10 looks like the Lavi, and the 'original' JF-17 looks like the project-33 concept from MiG. It seems the world is still waiting for a 100% original product from China. All you guys do is take existing concepts or designs, and then 'invent' something that you proceed to make seem like manna from heaven, when you cannot even make efficient and effective replicas of 1980s engine designs. Chengdu should be ashamed!

MiG-MFI aka the 'original' J-20:

MiG-1.42 ...move the intakes to the side and make the front slightly more shaped, and you have the 'original' J-20.

The MiG-MFI:

The TOTALLY 'original' J-20:

Lavi aka the 'original'J-10:

Here is the Lavi ....basically lengthen it a bit, and make crude attachments for the intake to the fuselage, and you have the 'original' J-10 (oh, and again ...the J-10 is in NO WAY similar to the Rafale). The Lavi:

Here is the 'original' J-10:

MiG-33 concept aka the 'original' JF-17:

Then you have the project-33 by MiG that was sold to China by Russia, and ended up being slightly changed into the 'original' JF-17.

Here is the 'original' JF-17:

I could do the same for your submarines, even your rifles! Face it ...all China does is make sub-par clones of Western and Russian designs. Then claim they are as good as Rafales and Raptors, when they cannot even get an engine design or a 1980s PESA RADAR straight.

43 posted on 01/10/2011 8:42:33 AM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
In fact Chinese aircraft won't even come out to play tag when US aircraft are in the YELLOW SEA!

Overall, I would have to agree with you assessment (despite your brashness). China will have to eat humble pie for at least two more decades.

But keep in mind, short of a deliberate confrontation, China will continue to close the gap. China's weakness with the US is her current level of military technology. But no one, not even the US, will be able to match China's ability to build, build and build. An American admiral even conceded that it would be foolish, in the long term, to ever match China one for one in hardware. In other words, once China does have a design of a particular hardward they feel is worth building en masse, whether it be an aircraft carrier, fighter jet, etc., she could crank out greater quantities than the US hope to.

The US will need to continue to keep the technological gap wide enough so as to make it futile for China to ever enter into a mass build up. I doubt the US can maintain the deterent technological gap over the next couple of decades.

44 posted on 01/10/2011 10:14:44 AM PST by ponder life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz
EuroFighter 2000:

Rafale:

JAS-39:

J-10B:


Sure looks like a F-16, LOL:


Btw, I tell you what does look like means: Su-27 and F-15, LOL:

Su-27 and the cruel joke called "PAK-FA/T-50":

And don't DODGE MY question, joker,TELL ME, DOES THIS FIGHTER LOOKS LIKE A MIG-1.44, LOL?

And we all know, the Russian's best fighter looks like this, its so unlucky that China have not stolen enough russian designs/techs, otherwise they would have build as good as a PAK-FA, hehehe:



45 posted on 01/10/2011 12:41:14 PM PST by Allthatucantleavebehind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind; sukhoi-30mki; Yo-Yo; Oztrich Boy; Tommyjo
My dear ATUCLB, you keep bringing up comparisons between the Eurofighter/Rafale and the J-10. I did not say the J-10 was a F-16 ....it is actually less capable than the latest block F-16s. I said it was a product of the aborted Lavi that the Chinese, as usual, copied. You must have terminally atrophied visual acuity if you think my comparison between the 'original' J-10 and the Lavi is a comparison between the J-10 and the Viper. As usual you keep jumping from topic to topic when you are unable to answer something I bring up (e.g. you jump from Rafales to PakFas to J-20s to now comparisons between F-16s and J-10s when I never even brought the issue up).

Ridiculous.

As you may tell by now, your rancid Chinese mumblings are not going to get the same 'wow' reception on FR as they may on Chinese forums. Also, AGAIN, you cannot compare a SINGLE ENGINED, POOR AVIONICS, POOR MMI, POOR ENGINE (actually worse than poor), ANEMIC SENSOR-SUITE, POOR T/W, POOR WINGLOADING, Chinese clone of the Lavi to a TWIN-ENGINED, HIGHLY ADVANCED AVIONICS, SUPERLATIVE SENSOR-SUITES, SUPERLATIVE WINGLOADING AND T/W, ARGUABLY THE MOST ADVANCED MMI (until the F-35 comes into being), HIGHLY ADVANCED ENGINE, ONE OF THE MOST ADVANCED ECM/ECCM SUITES plane like the Eurofighter and Rafale. The J-10 is simply a single-engine clone ....just because the Chengdu piece of crap has canards doesn't mean it is fit to wipe the butt off a Rafale.

As for the question about the J-20 and MiG-MFI ...I have already answered it in my prior post (as well as throwing you a bonus in the form of where the 'original' J-10 and JF-17 came from). I even put comparative pictures. I understand that you're probably not the smartest Chinese to try and troll FR (there was one a month before you who at least kept it going for over 50 posts before he got banned), and your posts do expose quite well the myopia that infects the average Chinese blogger who feels their equipment is advanced, but the sad fact is that the Chinese military (for all its development over the last twenty years) is simply not that advanced. Most of your airforce, for instance, is still flying what are effectively 1960s Soviet-era designs warmed over with some dim sum. Yet the average Chinese is stupid enough to compare the J-10 with the Eurofighter and the Rafale ...yes, stupid. Because all you are basing it on is the presence of canards.

China has never developed a completely original design, whether it is a simple motorcycle (poor copies of Japanese designs), vehicles (rather sad looking copies of Japanese, South Korean and Western designs), electronics (want a dual-SIM iPhone ...even though Apple doesn't have dual-SIM phones) and so on. It is the same with your military. You make inferior copies that look somewhat similar on the outside, and are totally not-to-par on the inside (again, engine and RADAR issues galore) and then claim they are world-beaters.

All China does is make the US take note and spend more, as Gates said just two days ago. All this chest thumping by you guys only makes YOUR position worse, because now the US will start putting more effort into further developing its military. Already the Chinese armed forces are probably a generation to a generation-and-a-half (according to Gates) behind the US. Soon that gap will go to a generation-and-a-half to two generations behind.

FReepers are actually quite grateful to you and your kind. The silly blustering by your 'wise leaders' and show-casing of specific anti-American capabilities have finally made even Gates and the Obama administration to get some sense and prudence knocked into them.

BTW, just to avoid more photos of Typhoons and Rafales and J-10s ...the J-10 is not, and will never be, anything close to a either of the twin-engined Eurocanards. When the J-10 is mature, maybe 10-15 years from now, it will be comparable to a Block 50 (maybe a gelded Block 60) F-16. Assuming you guys solve the engine issues, upgrade the avionics, finally sort out the pernicious engine problems. You get a nice F-16 from it. However, it will never be a Rafale.

46 posted on 01/10/2011 8:36:18 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind

The PAK-FA being a cruel joke??? The J-20 wonderjet would have remained on paper without Russian help including its engines.

If the J-10 was so cool compared to the Flanker, why is China still building the Flanker (albeit the J-11 copy)?? Shots of exercises in places like Tibet seem to be featuring the Flankers more.


47 posted on 01/10/2011 8:47:11 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: spetznaz

“I’ve never understood why the Chinese (and I assume you are Chinese - joined Dec 31 2010, weird/convoluted English syntax, masturbatory fantasies about the J-10 ....) think their copies are in any way comparable to advanced Western designs.”

Good call...I was thinking the same thing. Also, I can’t help but notice anytime a story comes out about this plane being better than that plane, just consider the source. The Rafale better than Typhoon because France says so? The Typhoon better than F-22 because EADS and their media lackeys say so? And e best yet, the J-20 better than most anything because e Chinese say so? Sure.


48 posted on 01/10/2011 9:34:14 PM PST by Citizen of the Savage Nation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind
for China, SSBN is not their priority, at least before they get Taiwan

How would Chinese control of Taiwan change the desirability of SSBN deployment?

49 posted on 01/10/2011 9:35:31 PM PST by Kennard (io)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Allthatucantleavebehind; sukhoi-30mki; Yo-Yo; Oztrich Boy
Considering the fact the convential airframe F-22 is not very good at air-combat comparing with the ground-breaking unique airframe of J-20 (lifting-body co-plane canards blending with leading edges), when a F-22 is facing a J-20, the result may not much different than trying to pitting a SU-27 against a J-10.

I had not even seen this piece of cr@p. Goodness, you are saying that the F-22 is 'not very good at air-combat' compared to the 'ground-breaking' J-20! Do you know how astoundingly stupid that is? Even for one as you?

50 posted on 01/10/2011 10:07:35 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson