Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

China's J-20 Stealth Fighter Is Already Doing A Whole Lot More
Business Insider ^ | 3/9/2012 | Eloise Lee and Robert Johnson

Posted on 03/10/2012 6:49:38 PM PST by U-238

New pictures of the China's J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter have surfaced and are making their way across military blogs.

This newest round of photos show the J-20 in the skies somewhere over mainland China.

The prototype is said to be using the Saturn AL-31 turbofan engine developed by the Russian's for their Su-27 air superiority fighter.

Reuben Johnson at The Washington Times reports the Chinese may be as much as 10 years away from producing an original stealth engine to slip into the J-20.

In the meantime, they'll have to take comfort in the fact that while the F-22 Raptor may be more agile and made entirely in the U.S., the Dragon carries more fuel and weapons than Lockheed's fighter.

The J-20's development is also moving along much faster than anyone had expected. Back in 2009, Gen. He Weirong, deputy commander of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force said in a TV interview that the J-20 wouldn't be operational until 2017-2019. That estimate will likely be revised if work continues at the current pace.

Bill Sweetman at AviationWeek points out that for all its headway, no one is yet sure what the J-20 is for. He speculates that given the aircraft's size and weapons bays, it may be used to "threaten intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and tankers, by using stealth and speed to defeat their escorts."

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


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: aerospace; china; clintonlegacy; j20; jxx; mightydragon; plaf; stealth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 03/10/2012 6:49:41 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: zot

Good photos at the link


2 posted on 03/10/2012 6:55:02 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: U-238

Considering all iPads and iPhones are being produced in Communist China and “can not be made in the USA”, why is anyone surprised how fast they are developing their stealth fighter?

We are idiots. Short sighted, foolish, idiots.


3 posted on 03/10/2012 7:00:13 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

The only upside is that my grandkids may wind up speaking Mandarin instead of Arabic.


4 posted on 03/10/2012 7:05:28 PM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Ipads and Ipods haven’t been weaponized have they?

I’m afraid your analogy is a bit like saying we won WWII due to the transistor radio.


5 posted on 03/10/2012 7:05:58 PM PST by sbMKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

But....they’re designed in Cupertino .

lol


6 posted on 03/10/2012 7:09:46 PM PST by Psycho_Bunny (Burning the Quran is a waste of perfectly good fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sbMKE

Who knows if they are stuffed with malware just waiting for a go code?


7 posted on 03/10/2012 7:15:32 PM PST by null and void (Day 1145 of America's ObamaVacation from reality [Heroes aren't made, Frank, they're cornered...])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sbMKE

My analogy has to do with a technological and manufacturing advantage we have surrendered to our largest communist enemy.

Doesn’t it concern you a at least a little?


8 posted on 03/10/2012 7:23:38 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Brought to you by americans who think the world tunes into American Idol, and thinks the world wants to be like us... got news for ya... the world wants to burry us, and the sooner the better.


9 posted on 03/10/2012 7:26:12 PM PST by dps.inspect (the system is rigged...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Agreed. And those who lean hard on the “superior quality” of US made products seem to have forgotten how “made in Japan” went from a joke to not so funny in 30 years.

Resting on your laurels isn’t a good long-term policy.


10 posted on 03/10/2012 7:30:22 PM PST by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: U-238
When they decide it's time to take Taiwan, they'll have us where they want us, beholden to them, and who they want in charge of us.

They've already learned how to hack in and take control of NASA, various power grids, traffic grids, sanitation systems, data systems, etc.

But don't worry. The Chicoms won't, nor will anyone else, be able to stop us from giving our Ms. Flukes their free birth control.

Thanks to obama and the progressives, unlike the Chinese, WE know what's really important!

11 posted on 03/10/2012 7:36:35 PM PST by GBA (Natural Born American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sbMKE
You should read what Jobs said about how the Chinese have transformed themselves into a manufacturing giant, with brand new state of the art factories, dedicated, eager labor and the ability to quickly adapt to a new product.

We, on the other hand, have taught them all we know and got out of the business of producing.

We taught them how to be what we used to be and then we retired.

12 posted on 03/10/2012 7:45:32 PM PST by GBA (Natural Born American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dps.inspect
got news for ya... the world wants to burry us,...

Heck, half of "us" wants to bury us!

13 posted on 03/10/2012 7:47:26 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: U-238

My money says the Canards will fall off and the J-20 becomes a lawn dart!!

In aeronautics, canard (French for “duck”) is an airframe configuration of fixed-wing aircraft in which the forward surface is smaller than the rearward, the former being known as the “canard”, while the latter is the main wing. In contrast a conventional aircraft has a small horizontal stabilizer behind the main wing.


14 posted on 03/10/2012 7:48:43 PM PST by WellyP (REAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WellyP
My money says the Canards will fall off and the J-20 becomes a lawn dart!!

It depends how serious they want to develop this technology.According to "The Telegraph" their design is 25 years old.They still can't compete with us.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8241968/Chinas-J-20-stealth-fighter-design-is-25-years-old.html
15 posted on 03/10/2012 7:56:37 PM PST by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

Thanks for the ping. That is a VERY agile air-superiority fighter. Look at the canards set well forward.


16 posted on 03/10/2012 8:10:03 PM PST by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: U-238
According to "The Telegraph" their design is 25 years old.They still can't compete with us.

The fact that its a 25 year old design is not surprising at all. The F22's planning and design began in the early 80's. Lockheed won the contract to build the thing as far back as 1991. It also doesn't matter if they are completely equivalent in performance to our planes either as long as they build and fly more of them. Quantity has a quality all of it's own.

17 posted on 03/10/2012 9:03:00 PM PST by Sparticus (Tar and feathers for the next dumb@ss Republican that uses the word bipartisanship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sparticus

“Quantity has a quality all of it’s own.”

Exactly!

That’s why the treasoncrats killed the F-22 program at 187 aircraft, instead of buying enough for a 1 for 1 replacement of the elderly F-15 as well as enough to cover for attrition.


18 posted on 03/10/2012 9:37:21 PM PST by 2CAVTrooper ( For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper
That’s why the treasoncrats killed the F-22 program at 187 aircraft, instead of buying enough for a 1 for 1 replacement of the elderly F-15 as well as enough to cover for attrition.

Unfortunately, in this instance the treasoncat was none other than Dubya.

19 posted on 03/10/2012 10:44:07 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GBA
"But don't worry. The Chicoms won't, nor will anyone else, be able to stop us from giving our Ms. Flukes their free birth control.

Great illustration of how comrade obama sets his priorities.
20 posted on 03/10/2012 11:19:38 PM PST by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Unless I’m missing something, Apple products are still engineered in American, only built in China. The sad reality is that we couldn’t run an Apple plant here in the US if we wanted to. The regulatory/union environment wouldn’t allow it.

I agree with you 100% in being concerned - I just think we see the cause for concern in entirely different terms.

Manufacturing (workforce) is a 20th century path to economic power - resources and energy are the issue and path of the current era. Food, water, oil, mined materials, etc.


21 posted on 03/11/2012 5:27:20 AM PDT by sbMKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Ever notice how we’re always caught unaware by how the PRC has ‘unexpectedly’ developed something or another thing, faster than our intelligence had thought?

Our intelligence is done by people with an interest in selling us down the river with ‘free trade’.

We are being betrayed, by those whose job it is, to protect us.


22 posted on 03/11/2012 5:31:48 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("The door is open" PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sbMKE

“Apple products are still engineered in American, only built in China.”

-

What does that mean exactly?

“engineered in America”.

The factory is in China. The automation is in China. The skilled labor is in China.

The tooling is in China.

“engineered in America”.

Baloney.

“MADE IN CHINA”.


23 posted on 03/11/2012 5:36:47 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ("The door is open" PALIN 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sbMKE

Exactly.

Everyone whines about how people don’t “buy American”, but we have made industry nearly impossible in this country with all the taxes, legislative overhead, bureaucracy, litigation, union activity, environmental regulation, never mind our own government deliberately jacking up the cost of energy.

We cannot mine. We cannot drill. We cannot build factories. We cannot employ people.

And it all stems from an overreaching, mountainous bureaucracy of federal, state and local government that is mounted on a one way ratchet that is only allowing them to get bigger, fatter, more bloated, more liberal and more restrictive over time.

It isn’t that America doesn’t have a capable workforce, manufacturing know-how or ability to leverage technology to produce goods and products. We aren’t being allowed to increase and grow industry. It is NOT an accident.

What investor, with good money is going to invest in a factory here in the USA with the accompanying taxes, environmental regulations, union/government meddling etc. when they can invest in a place like China where the government says “Just give this person and that person this much money, and we will stay out of your way. You won’t have unions protesting and making court challenges. You won’t have the Sierra Club protesting and blocking you in court. You won’t have the government agencies crawling up your butt. Just pay the tribute and your can build and prosper.”

There was once a time in this country where our way of business had a huge advantage over countries whose business environment was lubricated with bribes and payoffs and whose products were less cost competitive because we could get the raw materials here and didn’t need to pay shipping costs from making it elsewhere.

Our country has, since WWII, developed huge, encrusted growths of tax-fed, legislative, bureaucratic barnacles on the hull of our industrial ship, to the point our engines cannot develop enough thrust to drive us through the water.


24 posted on 03/11/2012 7:13:57 AM PDT by rlmorel (A knife in the chest from a unapologetic liberal is preferable to a knife in the back from a RINO.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sbMKE

The Chinese are not dumb. Even if we are do the engineering in the USA today, the Chinese engineers are learning or have learned what we are doing.

I think we have gone past the tipping point. If we don’t restart manufacturing here, then we won’t be able to tip it back the other way.

The pathetic union and welfare leaches will soon suffer incredible hardships when we have used up all the credit our forefathers fought hard to collect. Unfortunately, most of us and our children will suffer along with them.


25 posted on 03/11/2012 10:34:10 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: U-238
It looks a little like "FireFox" from the Clint Eastwood film;


26 posted on 03/11/2012 10:38:09 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
For comparison.

27 posted on 03/11/2012 10:40:51 AM PDT by FreeAtlanta (Liberty and Justice for ALL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: zot
That is a VERY agile air-superiority fighter. Look at the canards set well forward.

Not so much (in fact, many defense analysts rate it well below the F-22, Rafale, etc. in maneuverability). Even if you discount the engines (which are a big issue, since sustained and coordinated G turns are dependent on available thrust), non-lifting control canards (which those look like in that picture) usually act to control stall properties (the canards usually stall at slightly lower AoA than the wing lift surfaces, meaning that the canards stall before the plane does) compared to a conventional setup. If you look at the NASA research on both control and lift canards, there's a reason OUR fighters don't have them. They really don't add much to the design, and they have some significant drawbacks (see the lifting canards on the X-29 for example)...

28 posted on 03/11/2012 11:01:33 AM PDT by Charles H. (The_r0nin) (Hwaet! Lar bith maest hord, sothlice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: U-238

And the fool at the top cancels our F-22 because of cost. If they, like the Japanese, decide to hit us, we are in trouble.


29 posted on 03/11/2012 12:59:54 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maxwellsmart_agent

They are not spending all this money just to look good. Wake up before it is too late.


30 posted on 03/11/2012 1:01:51 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“Unfortunately, in this instance the treasoncat was none other than Dubya.”

Actually, it was killed in 2009 for the FY2010 budget.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-06/politics/gates.budget.cuts_1_pentagon-budget-defense-secretary-robert-gates-priorities?_s=PM:POLITICS

A short timeline to the death of the Raptor program:

On 6 April 2009, Secretary of Defense Gates called for the phasing out of F-22 production in fiscal year 2011.

On 9 July 2009, General James Cartwright, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services his reasons for supporting termination of F-22 production.

“The Pentagon cannot continue with business as usual when it comes to the F-22 or any other program in excess of our needs.” - Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speaking on the cancellation.

On 21 July 2009, President Obama threatened to veto F-22 funding.

On 21 July 2009, the Senate voted in favor of ending F-22 production.

On 30 July 2009, the House agreed to remove funds for an additional 12 aircraft and abide by the 187 cap.

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 in October 2009, without F-22 funding.


31 posted on 03/11/2012 8:17:26 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper ( For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

The J-20 is a rather strange airplane.

It is big. BIG. It’s size indicates something along the lines of a strategic interceptor.....think F-101, Su-15, or Mig 25/31. It is not a “dog-fighter” or air dominance airplane.

It’s forward section.....nose cone, cockpit, is F-22 like. Stealthy at least in shape. Aft that, it’s a combination of Rafale and F-23. Canards are not stealthy no matter how much you doctor them.

It’s a weird combination. Stealthily shaped big interceptor with very un-stealthy control surfaces and design that can’t possibly fly with more agile opponents.

It is impressive of them to display this level of tech. It is not impressive of them to display this level of technological disconnect.

The J-20 is an airplane designed to fly long ranges into an AWACS range and destroy the mothership while undetected. It’s other aerodynamic problems belie it’s ability to do so

It’s a modern day “Zerstroyer” which tech does not bear out.


32 posted on 03/11/2012 9:02:29 PM PDT by FAA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Charles H. (The_r0nin)

The canards on the J-20 are individually pivotable and retractable. Take another look at the photo in Post #26, in which the right canard is pivoted (for rapid roll) and the left canard is retracted (swept back into the fuselage).


33 posted on 03/11/2012 9:42:32 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper
Were you not around in 2006? It was Gates under President Bush in 2006 that capped F-22 production at 183 aircraft. Congress eventually upped it to 187, but it was the Bush administration that kept pushing to kill the Raptor.

In their last budget, the Bush administration kept the option to extend F-22 production up to the next administration, but still planned to end production at 187 aircraft.

All Gates did under Obama was to continue the policy he advocated when he was Secetrary of Defense under Bush.

34 posted on 03/12/2012 3:32:51 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

In January 2008, the Pentagon announced that it would ask Congress to fund additional F-22s.

24 Sept 2008, congress passed a defense spending bill authorizing additional F-22s.

The biggest cuts to the F-22 program came during the clinton administration where it was cut from 650+ aircraft to 438 in 1994, and then cut again in 1997 to 339 aircraft.

Due to a CONGRESSIONAL “cost cap” the procurement was reduced to 277 aircraft in 2003.

In 2004, the air force reduced the procurement to the 180+ in order to implement a multi-year procurement plan to allow for the possibility of future orders beyond the 180+ aircraft.


35 posted on 03/12/2012 7:16:12 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper ( For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: zot

Actually, I think it’s just the angle that the photo was taken that makes the canard look like it’s retracted.


36 posted on 03/12/2012 7:22:03 PM PDT by 2CAVTrooper ( For those who have had to fight for it, freedom has a flavor the protected shall never know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 2CAVTrooper

Maybe so. I will need to see more pictures to know for sure. Perhaps there is one of the J-30 with both canards retracted.


37 posted on 03/12/2012 10:07:09 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: zot

Bah! J-30 is a typo in my last post.


38 posted on 03/12/2012 10:08:14 PM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

You must think in Rus uh Chinese!


39 posted on 03/12/2012 10:44:18 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: U-238
In the meantime, they'll have to take comfort in the fact that while the F-22 Raptor may be more agile and made entirely in the U.S.,

Agility is nice, but the whole point of a stealth fighter is to shoot down the other guy before he even knows you're there. Better sensors, and information exchange as part of superior system with other assets make the F-22 superior. Dog fights are a thing of the past.

the Dragon carries more fuel and weapons than Lockheed's fighter.

That means it will make a bigger boom when the F-22 shoots it out of the sky.

40 posted on 03/12/2012 11:00:05 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Dog fights are a thing of the past.

That is what pilots said in Vietnam and we were creamed in the air. You cannot depend on missiles and techology.Missiles are a finite resource.
41 posted on 03/12/2012 11:26:54 PM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: U-238
That is what pilots said in Vietnam and we were creamed in the air.

That was over 40 years and many technological advancements ago. Do you have anything better? The army eventually had to go from horses to tanks.

42 posted on 03/13/2012 12:11:17 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

A computer cannot mimick the experience and skill of a pilot.


43 posted on 03/13/2012 12:17:05 AM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: U-238

They used to say the same thing about chess players.


44 posted on 03/13/2012 12:40:14 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

That is true. But I do not see Top Gun or Red Flag closing anytime soon.


45 posted on 03/13/2012 12:42:48 AM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: U-238
That is true. But I do not see Top Gun or Red Flag closing anytime soon.

Perhaps they should, but maybe it's like carrier groups. There are too many careers and too much money involved.

Maybe you will find this article from 2007 interesting.

Raptors wield 'unfair' advantage at Red Flag

46 posted on 03/13/2012 12:53:56 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

We will have to see them in combat to make a conclusion.


47 posted on 03/13/2012 12:57:50 AM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

Good article by the way.


48 posted on 03/13/2012 12:59:45 AM PDT by U-238
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
Agility is nice, but the whole point of a stealth fighter is to shoot down the other guy before he even knows you're there. Better sensors, and information exchange as part of superior system with other assets make the F-22 superior. Dog fights are a thing of the past.

I have wondered about that, although I cannot claim to own the idea since I read about it in some article. About how, in the near future, the war between stealth and sensors will go one of two ways. The first is that the advancement of stealth amongst near-peer competitors, for instance the Chinese and Russians, evolves to a level whereby their level of stealth is roughly analogous - not equal, but close enough - that by the time the USAF fighter and the Chinese/Russian fighter are detecting each other, the speed of the merge is basically bringing both aircraft at, or near, WVR. It is interesting that both the Raptor and whatever the PakFa prototype will give birth to are meant to be very agile in all regimes.

The second evolutionary thread was that sensor technology would outstrip the capabilities of stealth to ensure survivability within viable ranges, and it seems that sensor technology is evolving faster than stealth. A huge caveat to that statement is that it is based on what is publicly available, which means that the statement is worth a bucket of warm spit since none of us knows, with any degree of confidence, what the latest and upcoming developments are in terms of sensors and/or stealth. However, based on publicly available information, the British were (for example) able to track the B-2, and during the Gulf War were being able to easily track the F-117.

Anyways, sticking to the point of my post, going forward it is very possible that maneuverability will be back as a requirement, and looking at all Gen 5 and Gen 4.5/++ air-superiority fighters, all of them have not just maneuverability but extreme maneuverability as a must. Even the F-35, which was originally not meant to be a air-superiority fighter (before the Raptor got deep-sixed and its role got expanded) still has 'synthetic' maneuverability through its ability to target aircraft through its ingenious melding of its distributed aperture system and the HMDS, which can (based on what is publicly available, and assuming some of the issues they are having are sorted out) be capable of some nice piece of work.

But the interesting thing is - if in the near future a F-22C (assuming the next president lets Raptor evolution continue) facing off against (say) a SU-50 (the finished product of the T-50) or a J-23 (assuming the J-20 was just a technology demonstrator), it is quite possible that a 'dogfight' would ensue. Although I would agree that it would be a 'dogfight' in quotes since it would be I-IR missiles fighting it out rather than fighters aiming guns at one another. Although, again, both the Raptor and the T-50 prototype have maneuverability as key, both are able to jam incoming missiles (and, adding the F-35 to the mix, it was shown capable of jamming the F-22's radar), both have extreme maneuverability and not only in the supersonic regime (where it makes a lot of sense) but also in the sub-sonic area that is arguably only good for air-shows and dog-fighting, and both have guns (in the T-50's case there was a write-up saying the finished product may have TWO guns). In a future aerial environment between two near-peer adversaries (maybe US vs China; maybe China vs Russia) there will be constant jamming, all sorts of varied platforms, and a couple of stealthy players mucking about. I wouldn't be too surprised to see an actual dogfight when, in the muck of all the electronic warfare static in the air and fog of war, that two opposing stealthy platforms actually manage to get within WVR range where they are close enough to use I-IR missiles (which is arguably the modern form of the dogfight).

Just a thought.

49 posted on 03/13/2012 1:46:30 AM PDT by spetznaz (Nuclear-tipped Ballistic Missiles: The Ultimate Phallic Symbol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: zot
It is not retracted. Making a all moving control surface but pivot and retract would be both difficult and silly. What is more these ones are almost certainly loaded and provide lift. The reason it looks like that in the picture is because they have dihedral. Both canards are angled up. So from camera angle like that the far one looks longer and the near one looks shorter. This is not a high maneuverability aircraft. Someone posted a very good analysis a year or so back. The short version is that those canards are helping hold the plane up so they don't have that much more ‘authority’ to make it also pitch rapidly. See how massive that nose is and how tiny the canards are in comparison? That is a lot of airplane to move. The smart money on this one is saying it is an interceptor or a high speed medium bomber.
50 posted on 03/20/2012 1:53:58 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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