Chengdu J-10 Multirole Fighter Air Craft News & Discussions

[MastanKhan]

Hi N E,

Thanks for you r comments. China has decided to take the 'high road' to success---it does not need the military route to do the job.

Day before yesterday---there were more american cars sold in china than in the u s of a. A sale record was broken. Secondly---the americans donot get any benefit for those sales---because all the assembly and manufacturing is supposedly being done in china.

Chinese business people are in contetion of buying the 'HUMMER' brand from GM---some in china are against it ---but then we will wait and see- china is also a buyer of Volvo from GM.

All the chinese exports are being absorbed by the americans---china has the most amount of us dollars outside of u s of a---more than the u s itself---why then does china need to combat the u s.

Even though china imports its high tech CNC machine tooling equipment from the u s---it also knows the limitations that china has with its weapons systems---.

Even though we may consider that china will come up with something in 25 to 30 years---but then the u s will be light years away as well---when people want to compare what china wil become in future----they should remember the SR 71---when we saw this plane in retirement in the 90's after a service of 30 years---this plane was far advanced than any other plane on this planet---basically a plane of late 50's technology was way ahead of anything that this world has seen anywhere in this universe in the years of 1990's.

Now---if this is the difference in the technology---then the chinese are not interested in any warfare against the u s----today they don't even have a single successful hi tech fighter jet engine in production yet. It may take them another 15---20 years to get there where the current day upgraded F 15 or the F 16 or the FA 18 jet engines are.

So---the bottomline is again---no combat between the two---. J 10 may never get to take a shot at the F 22.

 

[Arsalan]

Hi N E,

Thanks for you r comments. China has decided to take the 'high road' to success---it does not need the military route to do the job.

Day before yesterday---there were more american cars sold in china than in the u s of a. A sale record was broken. Secondly---the americans donot get any benefit for those sales---because all the assembly and manufacturing is supposedly being done in china.

Chinese business people are in contetion of buying the 'HUMMER' brand from GM---some in china are against it ---but then we will wait and see- china is also a buyer of Volvo from GM.

All the chinese exports are being absorbed by the americans---china has the most amount of us dollars outside of u s of a---more than the u s itself---why then does china need to combat the u s.

Even though china imports its high tech CNC machine tooling equipment from the u s---it also knows the limitations that china has with its weapons systems---.

Even though we may consider that china will come up with something in 25 to 30 years---but then the u s will be light years away as well---when people want to compare what china wil become in future----they should remember the SR 71---when we saw this plane in retirement in the 90's after a service of 30 years---this plane was far advanced than any other plane on this planet---basically a plane of late 50's technology was way ahead of anything that this world has seen anywhere in this universe in the years of 1990's.

Now---if this is the difference in the technology---then the chinese are not interested in any warfare against the u s----today they don't even have a single successful hi tech fighter jet engine in production yet. It may take them another 15---20 years to get there where the current day upgraded F 15 or the F 16 or the FA 18 jet engines are.

So---the bottomline is again---no combat between the two---. J 10 may never get to take a shot at the F 22.

nice analysis sir!
almost all of us agree with the point that the J10 wont be countering the F22, there seems to be no possibility of such a misadventure from any side but the question was if it iis able to do so. i mean it was just a comparison of these technologies, a fruitfull analysis here would have helped us in countring the claims regarding the J10 being a below average 4.5 generation plane!

anyway thanks for your analysis!

regards!

 

[SBD-3]

Gates is right on the F-22
By: Winslow T. Wheeler
July 6, 2009 04:50 AM EST

Congress is busying itself trying to overturn Secretary of Defense Robert Gates?s decision to stop producing the F-22 fighter. But President Barack Obama has threatened to veto a spending bill for the entire Defense Department if it contains a single F-22 over the 187 now authorized.

Gates has said that, without a doubt, Obama should veto a bill that includes additional F-22s. The fact that there are doubts demonstrates the mess our defenses are in.

The House committee wants to make a down payment on 12 more F-22s in 2011; the Senate committee wants seven more in 2010.

The House passed its version of the bill on June 25 by a vote of 389-22. So Obama and Gates have a long way to go to show that they have the 145 or so votes they would need to sustain a veto.

Gates and Obama?s case against the F-22 is reasonable but needs to be more comprehensive.

Gates has argued that not a single F-22 has flown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there simply are no enemy air forces there.

Also, the F-22 is outrageously expensive. The 187 now authorized are costing the nation more than $65 billion, almost $350 million for each one.

More important, but so far unaddressed, is whether the F-22 is even a good fighter. Actually, it is a gigantic disappointment.

Its boosters advertise the F-22 as a technological wonder — which it isn?t.

Its ?stealth? characteristic is greatly exaggerated. And, while the F-22 is less detectable by some radar at certain angles, it is easily detectable to many types of radar in the world, including early Russian and Chinese models. Just ask the pilots of the two stealthy F-117 bombers that were put out of action by Serbs in the 1999 Kosovo air war using antiquated radar systems.

Worse, the F-22 depends on its radar and long-range, radar-guided missiles. Such ?beyond visual range? radar-based air warfare has failed time and time again in war.

There are two problems. First, even the low probability of intercept radar in the F-22 is vulnerable to detection by enemies, especially with the proliferation of spread-spectrum technology in cell phones and laptops. The radar not only signals the F-22?s presence to enemies but also acts as a beacon for their radar-homing missiles. While both the Russians and the Chinese specialize in such missiles, our Air Force, in its exercises, insists that such capabilities do not exist.

Second, its aerodynamic performance, short-range missiles and guns are nothing special, which I observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 ?shot down? an F-22 in exercises.

A vote in Congress for more F-22s is a vote to decay our pilots? skills, shrink our Air Force at increasing cost and reward Congress?s lust for pork. Congress?s new defense bill should, indeed, be vetoed if a single F-22 is added. Pro-defense members of Congress will support that move.

Winslow T. Wheeler is the director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information. He is the author of the new anthology ?America?s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress.?

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

Horrible Politico article on the F-22

 

[SBD-3]

F-22 Has A Fatal Skin Disease
July 12, 2009: Congressional hearings over building more F-22s has led to the release of data about how much it costs, per flight hour, to maintain the aircraft. It's $44,000 per flight hour, compared to $30,000 per hour for the older F-15 that the F-22 is replacing. The F-22 per-hour cost is nearly twice what it is for the F-16. While it requires 19 man hours of maintenance for each F-16 flight hour, the F-22 requires 34 hours. The manufacturer originally said it would be less than ten hours. Most of this additional F-22 expense (and man hours) is for special materials and labor needed to keep the aircraft invisible to radar.

The main problem is the radar absorbent material used on the aircraft. The B-2 had a similar problem, which was eventually brought under control. But even then, the B-2 cost more than twice as much to operate than the half century old B-52. The B-2 and F-22 use different types of radar absorbent materials, so many of the B-2 solutions will not work for the F-22.

Some of the F-22 electronics are still not as reliable as the air force would like. The F-35 uses a different approach to defeating radar signals, and the manufacturer insists that F-35 maintenance costs will be closer to that for the F-15, than for the F-22. But Lockheed Martin has been saying, for years, that its F-22 would be cheaper to maintain than existing aircraft. The air force never challenged this, at least not in public. Instead, the air force tried to keep the high operating costs a secret.

In addition, the F-22 costs more than three times as much as the aircraft it was to replace. The air force wants to build more than 187, and has allies in Congress who want the jobs (and votes) continued production will generate. But the Department of Defense is reluctant to spend that kind of money, especially when there so many other programs seeking funds (like electronic warfare aircraft, UAVs and upgrades for F-15s and F-16s). Thus, earlier this year, the Department of Defense decided to terminate F-22 production at 187 aircraft. This resulted in each aircraft costing (including development and production spending), $332 million. Just the production costs of the last F-22s built was $153.2 million. Added to the cost of the last few aircraft was a $147 million fee the Department of Defense agreed to pay if the production line was shut down. This goes to pay for shutting down facilities and terminating contracts with hundreds of supplies.

The F-22 is a superb aircraft, probably the most capable fighter in the world. But the development and manufacturing costs kept rising until it became too expensive for the media, voters and politicians. The air force was able to build it, but they couldn't sell it to the people who paid the bills.

A decade ago, the F-22 was a $62 billion program, of which development accounted for $18.9 billion (this was a spending cap imposed by Congress). A decade before that, the air force was planning to buy 750 F-22s. Costs kept going up for two decades, and Congress refused to provide more money. So, for $62 billion, the air force ended up getting fewer aircraft.

The air force ran into a similar problem with the B-2 bomber, which became so expensive they were only allowed to build 21, and these cost $2.1 billion each. . About half of that was development expense. Actual construction costs for each of those aircraft was about $933 million each. Still pretty high, mainly because a lot of special machinery and factories had to be built to manufacture the many custom components.

The air force likes to point out that if the original (1986) plan had been followed, each B-2 would have cost $438 million each. But then the entire program would have cost $58.2 billion, versus $44.3 billion for the 21 plane program (which included $10 billion more R&D expense).

New technology gives a weapon, especially an aircraft, an edge in combat. But since World War II, most military technology has been developed in peacetime conditions. This means it is more than twice as expensive, as there is no wartime urgency to overcome bureaucratic inertia (and emphasis on covering your ***, which is very time consuming and expensive) and hesitation (because you don't have a war going on to settle disputes over what will work best). Developing this new technology takes longer in peacetime, which also raises the cost, and fewer units of a new weapon are produced (driving up the amount of development cost each weapon will have to carry.) If several hundred B-2s were produced under wartime conditions, each aircraft would have probably cost $200 million, or less. In other words, a tenth of what it actually cost. Same deal with the mythical $35 million F-22, or any other high tech weapon.

Other nations have adapted more effectively to peacetime development conditions. But the United States has the largest amount of peacetime military research and development, and this has created a unique military/industry/media/political atmosphere that drives costs up to the point where voters, politicians and the media will no longer support them.

 

[SBD-3]

""international AIR POWER REVIEW" - year 2006, issue 20, page 45. - ISNB: 1-880588-91-9 (casebound) or ISBN: 1473-9917.

"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long range. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagement was canceled, and "the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more .""

I dare say that I am not surprised it if is true .

Cheers .

 

[gambit]

Gates is right on the F-22
By: Winslow T. Wheeler
July 6, 2009 04:50 AM EST

Congress is busying itself trying to overturn Secretary of Defense Robert Gates?s decision to stop producing the F-22 fighter. But President Barack Obama has threatened to veto a spending bill for the entire Defense Department if it contains a single F-22 over the 187 now authorized.

Gates has said that, without a doubt, Obama should veto a bill that includes additional F-22s. The fact that there are doubts demonstrates the mess our defenses are in.

The House committee wants to make a down payment on 12 more F-22s in 2011; the Senate committee wants seven more in 2010.

The House passed its version of the bill on June 25 by a vote of 389-22. So Obama and Gates have a long way to go to show that they have the 145 or so votes they would need to sustain a veto.

Gates and Obama?s case against the F-22 is reasonable but needs to be more comprehensive.

Gates has argued that not a single F-22 has flown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But there simply are no enemy air forces there.

Also, the F-22 is outrageously expensive. The 187 now authorized are costing the nation more than $65 billion, almost $350 million for each one.

More important, but so far unaddressed, is whether the F-22 is even a good fighter. Actually, it is a gigantic disappointment.

Its boosters advertise the F-22 as a technological wonder — which it isn?t.

Its ?stealth? characteristic is greatly exaggerated. And, while the F-22 is less detectable by some radar at certain angles, it is easily detectable to many types of radar in the world, including early Russian and Chinese models. Just ask the pilots of the two stealthy F-117 bombers that were put out of action by Serbs in the 1999 Kosovo air war using antiquated radar systems.

Worse, the F-22 depends on its radar and long-range, radar-guided missiles. Such ?beyond visual range? radar-based air warfare has failed time and time again in war.

There are two problems. First, even the low probability of intercept radar in the F-22 is vulnerable to detection by enemies, especially with the proliferation of spread-spectrum technology in cell phones and laptops. The radar not only signals the F-22?s presence to enemies but also acts as a beacon for their radar-homing missiles. While both the Russians and the Chinese specialize in such missiles, our Air Force, in its exercises, insists that such capabilities do not exist.

Second, its aerodynamic performance, short-range missiles and guns are nothing special, which I observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 ?shot down? an F-22 in exercises.

A vote in Congress for more F-22s is a vote to decay our pilots? skills, shrink our Air Force at increasing cost and reward Congress?s lust for pork. Congress?s new defense bill should, indeed, be vetoed if a single F-22 is added. Pro-defense members of Congress will support that move.

Winslow T. Wheeler is the director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information. He is the author of the new anthology ?America?s Defense Meltdown: Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress.?

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

Horrible Politico article on the F-22

This 'Winslow T. Wheeler' is obviously a technical ignoramus. Eveything highlighted have been effectively debunked as I have explained how several times here. Looks like the US critics, unable to challenge the F-22 on technical issues, must resort to trolling the Internet for and post as many of these nonsensical op-eds as possible.

 

[gambit]

The F-35 uses a different approach to defeating radar signals,

Care to explain what that is...?

 

[a1b2c145]

fly~~~~~~~~~~
Fly,fly and fly

 

[mean_bird]

J-10b in regular color (posted by GT@CDF)

 

[spurdozer]

Gates is right on the F-22

Its ?stealth? characteristic is greatly exaggerated. And, while the F-22 is less detectable by some radar at certain angles, it is easily detectable to many types of radar in the world, including early Russian and Chinese models. Just ask the pilots of the two stealthy F-117 bombers that were put out of action by Serbs in the 1999 Kosovo air war using antiquated radar systems.

Assalam-o-Alaikum

How are you? The F-22 uses a different approach for LO than the F-117. The F-117's stealth technology is outdated and all the F-117 platforms are now retired from service. Although I am not a technical man. But as gambit sir has several times explained that F-22 does not use the stealth technology used on the F-117.
Although I have never been a fan of the F-22 project financially but no one can deny the super-technological wonder it is, and it is simply dumb to under-estimate the powers of F-22. One might have have reservations about the financial aspects of the project but the plane itself is a magnificent piece of supreme technology.
Salam.

 

[spurdozer]

J-10b in regular color (posted by GT@CDF)

Masha-Allah. Looks beautiful.

 

[Rank]

Masha-Allah. Looks beautiful.

wOW!! aircraft loOkin seXi

 

[Arsalan]

i wish the FC20 turns out to be even better! not in apperance only but inn specs and performance!
and i wish to see em soon!!

regards!

 

[SBD-3]

i wish the FC20 turns out to be even better! not in apperance only but inn specs and performance!
and i wish to see em soon!!

regards!

what defferences are you expecting in FC-20???

 

[mean_bird]

We don't know the specs of this plane but the different between FC-20 and the regular J-10 would be in better Radar, Navigation system and weapons.

Additionally, the engine is like to change as well. There might be other things too but we do not know about it yet.