Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[PAFAce]

PAF ace
My friend this is what I meant. Technological advancements aside the human in the aircraft is the biggest impediment to making the fighter perform better. Plus they are expensive to train and only last 20-30yrs at best. I think in many ways 5th generation is a tech demonstrator for things to come. I am still intrigued by how EU has letitself fall behind quite intentionlly in the race to get 5th gen fighters. However they are all going great guns for UAVs. It seems that they too foresee it as a temporary measure and therefore not worth persuing.
In PAfs scenario instead of going after 5th gen, I would concentrate on a very small cheap yet strong UCAV carrying 1-2 SRAAM/MRAAms. Imagine your sky full of a hundred or so UCAVS with no radars but getting updates from a plane flying 150-200KMs behind. Small and lethal.
What do you think
Araz

Yep, UAS are definitely the future, I couldn't agree with you more. It's not just the Europeans, even the Americans are spending lots of their R&D resources (this includes valuable finances and invaluable expertise) on UAS development. Almost half of all aviation/space system media nowadays is covered with featured reports on UAV/UCAV systems and the Robotics industry. The benefits of these, as you explained, are quite obvious. As one US Navy Chief Petty Officer put it “When a robot dies, you don’t have to write a letter to its mother.” That's profound, in that it would save lives. People would go to war like they go to office jobs, drive to the pilot-station, fly the aircraft, and drive home at night to be with the family. Of course, that's an exaggerated view, but that's possible with UAS.

However, we must not get carried away. The fights of the near future will still (largely) be between manned aircraft, and next-gen tech gives you an unfair advantage over your adversary. Europe did not permit itself to fall behind, but rather fell behind purely due to their threat perception. In Europe, it is much more difficult for governments to justify spending billions on technology that won't serve any useful purpose for almost 50 years. In other words, there is a reason why there is no European DARPA. The same can be said about the respective Space programs of Europe and the USA.

Like I said, in any hypothetical future war with a theoretically well-matched enemy (say, Russia or China), the American pilots will still have an unfair leg-up on their enemies. And that, for the Americans, justifies the push into fifth-generation.

Lastly, you may consider the F-117 a tech demonstrator, even the B-2 or the SR-71, but the F-22 is very much an operationally inclined aircraft. It was built to be that way, from the day the program started 20 years ago. Of course, since it is so new, it has had problems that were unprecedented. Therefore, we will learn from it, but that's not its primary goal. It's primary goal is to destroy hi-tech enemy forces.

 

[SBD-3]

Yep, UAS are definitely the future, I couldn't agree with you more. It's not just the Europeans, even the Americans are spending lots of their R&D resources (this includes valuable finances and invaluable expertise) on UAS development. Almost half of all aviation/space system media nowadays is covered with featured reports on UAV/UCAV systems and the Robotics industry. The benefits of these, as you explained, are quite obvious. As one US Navy Chief Petty Officer put it “When a robot dies, you don’t have to write a letter to its mother.” That's profound, in that it would save lives. People would go to war like they go to office jobs, drive to the pilot-station, fly the aircraft, and drive home at night to be with the family. Of course, that's an exaggerated view, but that's possible with UAS.

However, we must not get carried away. The fights of the near future will still (largely) be between manned aircraft, and next-gen tech gives you an unfair advantage over your adversary. Europe did not permit itself to fall behind, but rather fell behind purely due to their threat perception. In Europe, it is much more difficult for governments to justify spending billions on technology that won't serve any useful purpose for almost 50 years. In other words, there is a reason why there is no European DARPA. The same can be said about the respective Space programs of Europe and the USA.

Like I said, in any hypothetical future war with a theoretically well-matched enemy (say, Russia or China), the American pilots will still have an unfair leg-up on their enemies. And that, for the Americans, justifies the push into fifth-generation.

Lastly, you may consider the F-117 a tech demonstrator, even the B-2 or the SR-71, but the F-22 is very much an operationally inclined aircraft. It was built to be that way, from the day the program started 20 years ago. Of course, since it is so new, it has had problems that were unprecedented. Therefore, we will learn from it, but that's not its primary goal. It's primary goal is to destroy hi-tech enemy forces.

one thing that sparks me is that why US is passive or not owrking on 6th gen fighters i mean even if not now but when PAK-FA and JXX will take to skies They will pose a serious threat to US JSFs and Raptors as well so either conclusion is US has underestimated Chinese and Russians or it thinks that F-22 will never be matched by any other country in coming ages

 

[gambit]

one thing that sparks me is that why US is passive or not owrking on 6th gen fighters i mean even if not now but when PAK-FA and JXX will take to skies They will pose a serious threat to US JSFs and Raptors as well so either conclusion is US has underestimated Chinese and Russians or it thinks that F-22 will never be matched by any other country in coming ages

What make you believe we are not? Just because you do not see such news in print or in the rumor mills?

 

[Mercenary]

one thing that sparks me is that why US is passive or not owrking on 6th gen fighters i mean even if not now but when PAK-FA and JXX will take to skies They will pose a serious threat to US JSFs and Raptors as well so either conclusion is US has underestimated Chinese and Russians or it thinks that F-22 will never be matched by any other country in coming ages

It has no need to work on a 6th generation aircraft.

It would if the Cold War was still going on but its not.

USA is embroiled in an insurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and needs to invest more on UAV rather than F-22 which have not flown a single combat mission over Iraq and Afghanistan.

USA is ordering equipment to fight the war it is currently engaged in and not the one it might in the future against Russia or China.

 

[EagleEyes]

Discuss without the rants. Topic cleared, and members noticed.

 

[pakpower]

You know what i am going to report both you and PAFace for your bullshit ranting and bullying other members.

Go report it whatever you want, but I must tell you one thing you dont give respect to others I dont know why you do that but it's a fact you only care for yourself which is not good for your future.

 

[SBD-3]

What make you believe we are not? Just because you do not see such news in print or in the rumor mills?

with MANTA scrapped and here s something I got

Boeing is touting an even newer version of its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that, paired with an advanced sixth-generation fighter in the works at the company, would give customers what Boeing deems a better package of capabilities than Lockheed Martin's combination of the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The idea is that customers could buy 4.5 generation Super Hornets (perhaps 4.75 generation with the planned extra forward stealth and extra range of Block 3 aircraft) and then switch to a new, sixth generation faster than if they bought the fifth generation Joint Strike Fighter. To be available circa 2024, the sixth generation aircraft would feature a combat radius of more than 1,000 miles and stealth against a much wider spectrum of radars.

"The [Navy] C-version of the F-35 doesn't buy you a lot that the Super Hornet doesn't provide," says Bob Gower, Boeing's vice president for F/A-18 and EA-18G programs. "Our strategy is to create a compelling reason for the services to go to the next [sixth] generation platform. How do you bridge F/A-18E/F to get us there? We want to convince customers to stay with [Super Hornet] a few years longer -- by adding advanced capabilities and lowering price -- so that they can get to the sixth generation faster. If you go to JSF first, it's going to be a long time."

Another part of Boeing's argument is that the "Navy is comfortable with the Super Hornet against the highest [enemy] threat through 2024, with the [improved] capabilities we have in the flight plan," Gower says. "The ability to counter the threat gets you to about the point that [Boeing's] sixth generation is available."

It's part of Boeing's counterattack on Lockheed Martin's claim that the decreasing price of the F-22, which is now at $140 million each, will make it so attractive that Australia may reconsider its buy -- already being paid for -- of 24 two-seat F/A-18F Super Hornets. Until Australia's recent change in government, a number of U.S. officials said the government was considering a second lot of 24 Super Hornets and a six-plane squadron of EA-18G Growlers.

Boeing makes the argument that a sliding in-service date for the JSF is worrying both the Australians and the U.S. military.

"The U.S. Air Force and Navy are now talking a lot more about where they need to go with sixth generation to get beyond JSF," Gower says. "It could be unmanned, but I think you will see a combination of missions -- some manned, some unmanned."

For Boeing, the real discriminators are going to be extended range (1,000-1,500 miles), a small radar signature against low-frequency radars, expanded awareness through connections with the network, and the ability to carry a number of bombs internally.

????????????????????????????????????????

 

[PAFAce]

What make you believe we are not? Just because you do not see such news in print or in the rumor mills?

Yes, gambit, there is no way to know. But tell me, as an engineer, you know you can't engineer something without requirements. Where are the requirements going to come from, to merit a so-called sixth-generation capability?

Now, I am sure DARPA has something up its sleeve, I have always been a huge fan of the DARPA concept, but even they work on systems that may have some use 50 years down the road.

Unless, sixth-gen means space-wars or star-wars (Reagan's dream), where the engines will be non-air breathing/air-breathing hybrids and the primary area of focus will be the upper earth atmosphere or lower space. That's something the US is already working towards (DARPA's got a project listed on their website, an unmanned upper atmosphere static aircraft), so it's not really that secretive.

hasnain0099, thanks for that article, but what they've described there hardly merits an entire next-gen credibility. That's more like 5.5th-gen if anything, with everything from the fifth-gen, but better. But, who am I to argue with a company like Boeing?

 

[gambit]

Yes, gambit, there is no way to know. But tell me, as an engineer, you know you can't engineer something without requirements. Where are the requirements going to come from, to merit a so-called sixth-generation capability?

The next generation of 'stealth' will be ACTIVE instead of passive radar effects.

There are four main methods of affecting the behavior of a radar signal on a body, not merely a surface, we are past that, but on a body, which is a compilation of surfaces and is irregular. People should not confuse symmetry with regularity. The human face is symmetrical but NOT uniform. The nose, depressions for the eyes, lips and the hollows of the cheeks, all are irregular features. Same for an aircraft which is symmetrical but highly irregular in features.

The four methods are:

- Shaping
- Absorbers (RAM)
- Passive cancellation
- Active cancellation

We already are highly experienced with the first three items. The fourth -- active cancellation -- require the skin of the body to be absorbers AND emitters. Photolithography, the technology of semiconductor manufacturing that I am currently in right now, is ideal for creating transistors and capacitors on a panel. With active cancellation, we WILL make a claim of 'invisibility', or a drone will appear on radar as the giant B-52. This is not about carrying a transponder to pretend to be a B-52 but about absorbing radar signals and manipulating them. We will disappear off the scope at will no matter the distance we are from the seeking transmitter, even if the body is stationary and is only one meter away from the antenna.

 

[PAFAce]

The next generation of 'stealth' will be ACTIVE instead of passive radar effects.

There are four main methods of affecting the behavior of a radar signal on a body, not merely a surface, we are past that, but on a body, which is a compilation of surfaces and is irregular. People should not confuse symmetry with regularity. The human face is symmetrical but NOT uniform. The nose, depressions for the eyes, lips and the hollows of the cheeks, all are irregular features. Same for an aircraft which is symmetrical but highly irregular in features.

The four methods are:

- Shaping
- Absorbers (RAM)
- Passive cancellation
- Active cancellation

We already are highly experienced with the first three items. The fourth -- active cancellation -- require the skin of the body to be absorbers AND emitters. Photolithography, the technology of semiconductor manufacturing that I am currently in right now, is ideal for creating transistors and capacitors on a panel. With active cancellation, we WILL make a claim of 'invisibility', or a drone will appear on radar as the giant B-52. This is not about carrying a transponder to pretend to be a B-52 but about absorbing radar signals and manipulating them. We will disappear off the scope at will no matter the distance we are from the seeking transmitter, even if the body is stationary and is only one meter away from the antenna.

That's interesting. I am somewhat familiar with the techniques used to create semiconductor devices (at an undergrad level). However, what you're talking about is turning the entire aircraft into a giant emitter. Transistors are greatly affected by their surroundings, slight variations in temperature affect their performance. If you have transistors embedded in an aircraft, their performance will vary incredibly. That will probably require complex control, or maybe not. You never know what you're going to get, but I I have a feeling this active-stealth tech will require more than just an understanding og Electromagnetics. I have to get back to work, so I'll add more later.

 

[gambit]

That's interesting. I am somewhat familiar with the techniques used to create semiconductor devices (at an undergrad level). However, what you're talking about is turning the entire aircraft into a giant emitter. Transistors are greatly affected by their surroundings, slight variations in temperature affect their performance. If you have transistors embedded in an aircraft, their performance will vary incredibly. That will probably require complex control, or maybe not. You never know what you're going to get, but I I have a feeling this active-stealth tech will require more than just an understanding og Electromagnetics. I have to get back to work, so I'll add more later.

We do not need to create nowhere as detailed as substrate circuits. Current absorbers can be made to be frequency selective, but they are static: Jaumann, Dallenbach, Salisbury and circuit analog.

Radar-absorbent material - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Jaumann absorber or Jaumann layer is a radar absorbent device. When first introduced in 1943, the Jaumann layer consisted of two equally-spaced reflective surfaces and a conductive ground plane. One can think of it as a generalized, multi-layered Salisbury screen as the principles are similar.

It the fourth -- circuit analog -- that interest us and the basic techniques for creating a dynamic absorber is already available...

Simple design of thin and wideband circuit analogue absorber

A new and simple design for thin and broadband circuit analogue absorbers is presented. The proposed absorber is composed of a two-dimensional periodic array of multiple patches printed on a conductor-backed substrate, which exhibits the property of multiple resonances and provides a wide absorbing bandwidth. Measured results show that this simple absorber has a bandwidth of 76% for 10 dB RCS reduction and its thickness is only one-eighth free-space wavelength at the centre frequency.

The issue is mass manufacturing then how to control the panels on the aircraft. Conformal arrays are already in the works.

For the F-22 and F-35, each is already 'self-aware' of its own RCS with respect to the transmitting radar, meaning the aircraft knows its dimensions, detect the transmitting direction, call up its figures, calculate its own RCS in respect to that transmitter, and finally adjust its flight attitude to present the lowest possible RCS to that radar. All without conscious inputs from the pilot. For the future, the computational power required to create false RCS-es through these conformal arrays will be enormous because the aircraft is moving. Without sufficient native technological foundation, it is not possible to manufacture these next generation of aircrafts.

 

[BATMAN]

It has no need to work on a 6th generation aircraft.

It would if the Cold War was still going on but its not.

USA is embroiled in an insurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and needs to invest more on UAV rather than F-22 which have not flown a single combat mission over Iraq and Afghanistan.

USA is ordering equipment to fight the war it is currently engaged in and not the one it might in the future against Russia or China.

I believe it, because there are no known projects of 5th generation aircraft from Europe also.
Senate cannot approve any amount for a more advance jet than F-35 or F-22 while US cannot benifit from exisiting developments due ot financial reasons.

Only country which seems going after the 5th generation project is China.

 

[gambit]

Senate cannot approve any amount for a more advance jet than F-35 or F-22 while US cannot benifit from exisiting developments due ot financial reasons.

How DARPA allocate research fundings is independent of the US Congress budgeting process. The unclassified DARPA budget is here...

DARPA | DARPA Budget

DARPA's research budget is anywhere between 3-4 bils. That is a pittance compared to how much those Saudi princes squandered their oil wealth.

Saudi Prince's Firm Loses $8.3B in 4Q - ABC News

The reason why DARPA in specific, and the US in general, is so successful at implementing seemingly esoteric research into working models is because of the diversity of the native US technology base. When I left avionics a decade ago and entered semiconductor manufacturing, it never entered my mind that semicon manufacturing techniques and technology could be applicable to aviation. Then one day a friend who remained in avionics called me up and asked a few questions regarding photo 'steppers'...

Stepper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A stepper is a device used in the manufacture of integrated circuits (ICs) that is similar in operation to a slide projector or a photographic enlarger. Steppers are an essential part of the complex process, called photolithography, that creates millions of microscopic circuit elements on the surface of tiny chips of silicon. These chips form the heart of ICs such as computer processors, memory chips, and many other devices.

The absorber technique used in the F-117 contained ferrite particles in a composite material that can be either a liquid or an applied film. Those ferrite particles can be of different sizes to affect different freqs, but overall the particles are not uniform throughout the medium holding them. Turns out that these 'steppers' could be used for creating complex ferrite particle patterns that are necessary for SELECTIVELY trapping and absorbing radar signals. What 'could be' mean to the average person does not carry the same context for DARPA. On any circuit board are 'traces' for electrical pathways between components. Same for silicon substrate level in connecting microscopic components on a 'die' to make a CPU or a DRAM memory unit. So the idea, on paper at least, is to electrically connect these complex ferrite particle patterns to make them electrically active at will. This is several generations beyond common commmercial radome coatings that passes through transmissions. This is not science fiction and would not take any avionics engineer very long to connect the dots. May be DARPA found something else better by now. But this is DARPA's strength -- creativity. DARPA will fund the basic research, make enquiries among companies whose ordinary operations are related and applicable, and simply file those information away. All the while DARPA make regular check-ups in the industries on technology progress. So when there is a need for the idea, if it remains applicable by that time, DARPA will already have all the necessary basic data for the manufacturers to apply their skills.

 

[araz]

Sir if the 5th generation was just a tech demonstrater, why do you think US is spending billions in research. Moreover your argument about why EU is left behind the 5th generation race, well sir its not valid, the reason is that most of the EU countries are partners in the JSF project (UK, Germany......) so why reinvent the wheel when it already exists. Russia has started developing its own 5th generation fighter jet with India as partner and certainly China too as suggested by many have entered into developing its own version of a 5th generation figther jet.

Ice cold.
For every stage of development in fighters there have been comparable US and EU fighters. Why not 5th Generation? This is something that bugs me. If you think EU is just contributing, why have they not done so and reaped the harvest of American work? I am not saying i am right or wrong. Like any novice it is one of those things that bug you. If the answer is simply reinventing the wheel, then why rafale and EF and gripen?
Do you see where I am coming from?
Araz

 

[IceCold]

Ice cold.
For every stage of development in fighters there have been comparable US and EU fighters. Why not 5th Generation? This is something that bugs me. If you think EU is just contributing, why have they not done so and reaped the harvest of American work? I am not saying i am right or wrong. Like any novice it is one of those things that bug you. If the answer is simply reinventing the wheel, then why rafale and EF and gripen?
Do you see where I am coming from?
Araz

perhaps sir you have a point however keep this fact in mind also that EU is not just simply contributing, but they are fully involved in the project. I remember a year ago or maybe it was further back, UK threaten to withdraw from the JSF project because US was simply not giving them the source codes needed for them to modify the software of the plane as per their needs. Gripen well it uses most of the parts made in the US besides lets not forget the reason why gripen was made in the first place, it has nothing to do with 5th generation but a simple fact a plane that could take off and land from roads in sweden and french are simply not involved into the project of 5th generation so far so rafale makes sense but EF is more like replacing the aging fleet since imo not every single jet in the EU inventory can be replaced by the JSF so 4.5th generation fighters will still be flying besides EU does not faces the same level of threat the americans claim to face, the only threat to EU comes from Russia i suppose and i think EU will perhaps jump into the 5th category only after the russians get their hand on one and until that time they will remain engaged with the JSF.
In any case calling 5th generation a tech demonstrater just because EU for now is not fully involved and only collaborating with the americans would be an understatement. like some one suggested back F-117 can be called as a tech demonstrater but certainly not the F-22 or even the JSF.

My 2 paisas over the issue.