Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 455

Thread: Shenyang J-21/31/F-60/AMF thread part 1

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Sheogorath View Post
    Of course. Otherwise they wouldn't turned the J-20 into a Mig 1.44 clone and would have figured out that putting gigantic canards on the thing isn't conductive to stealthyness.
    Isnt it pretty obvious to everyone that Mig-1.44 a Chinese 1960s era's J-9-VI-2 clone?


    http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/p/2008-0...825515312.html
    I think russians eventually figured out the 1960s era Chinese J-9VI-2 is not intend as a fifth generation fighter, thats why they give it up and turn to conuntine to modify their su-27s to Su-27 rolled version

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    4,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    look at the picture on the top. you can see the bay door opening and also panel outline on side doors. it is safe to say it is on the other side as well so 2 bottom bay and 2 side bay. pakfa only has two bays between the engine. some say the two pod on the wing is a small bay but we dont know yet but the pod is not good for stealth
    PAK-FA has two centerline bays and two auxilliary bays. That is quite well known..
    At the same time, I cannot see any lateral bay on the J-31. The panel located between the main landing gear well and the logo painted on the intake looks way too short for any missile I am aware of.

    There are differences between us. I want to know how things are... And I am open to change my mind.. OTOH, you just want to see how everything that Chinese spit out from the factories is superior to the T-50 and even a grainy image shot from a half mile distance is good enough of a proof for you... That is why we will never see the same.
    Last edited by MSphere; 16th September 2012 at 22:32.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    182

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    I reported you both.
    I report you!.. this image!



  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    94
    Check the screenshots, that is the issue they purchased from Hong Kong's Kanwa office, the Chinese issue of Kanwa Defense Review, learn to live with it:diablo::diablo::diablo:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	001.jpg 
Views:	351 
Size:	257.3 KB 
ID:	208260   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	002.jpg 
Views:	262 
Size:	181.9 KB 
ID:	208261   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	003.jpg 
Views:	327 
Size:	256.8 KB 
ID:	208262   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	004.jpg 
Views:	239 
Size:	176.4 KB 
ID:	208263  
    Last edited by SGW06; 16th September 2012 at 23:16.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    China
    Posts
    129

    front landing gear & engines

    1)why they use dual landing wheels on the front landing gear, and there is some distance between the 2 wheels obviously, if they need to reinforce they front landing gear strength to make it more suitable for carriers and short/poor runways, why dont just reinforce the structure instead of adding more wheels.

    infact if the plane dosen't have a very low landing speed (like transports or civil airliners), the distance between the 2 front wheels will cause they landing very dangerous( the plane will roll sidways).

    2) the engines are for show, the designer put much thoughts on the head and continues to ignore the rear, the baisc ideas for J-20/F60 is the same: very stealthy when you are going in for a strike, but dont show your ass on your way back, it looks very fat and sexy for enemy radars.

    3) details, it's like a Iranian or North Korean design, great efforts to stay in fasion, but still a crude idea, no avionics installed yet, like a design made by a bunch of undergraduates.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    342
    Wow, the F-35 is really in trouble with that evaluation.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by thinkplum View Post
    1)why they use dual landing wheels on the front landing gear, and there is some distance between the 2 wheels obviously, if they need to reinforce they front landing gear strength to make it more suitable for carriers and short/poor runways, why dont just reinforce the structure instead of adding more wheels.

    infact if the plane dosen't have a very low landing speed (like transports or civil airliners), the distance between the 2 front wheels will cause they landing very dangerous( the plane will roll sidways).

    2) the engines are for show, the designer put much thoughts on the head and continues to ignore the rear, the baisc ideas for J-20/F60 is the same: very stealthy when you are going in for a strike, but dont show your ass on your way back, it looks very fat and sexy for enemy radars.

    3) details, it's like a Iranian or North Korean design, great efforts to stay in fasion, but still a crude idea, no avionics installed yet, like a design made by a bunch of undergraduates.
    You realize everything you said could be applied to T-50 as well?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    59
    This is pretty much an F-35 copy, but there are a few differences.

    First, the wing loading on the J-21 is lower than on the F-35 A and B variants, although not the C variant, with a larger wing for its size.

    Unlike the F-35, the J-21 does not have bumps on the bottom to optimize its aerodynamic characteristics. This should improve all-aspect stealth slightly, but we don't know how good the Chinese are at stealth optimization in general.

    The tailfins are larger on the J-21 than on the F-35, on a proportionate basis. This should increase stability somewhat, but will contribute to higher RCS.

    With regards to complaints about rear-stealth, the great thing about the J-21 is that it's a twin-engine design with the potential for optimization for all-aspect stealth. If you're complaining about unstealthy exhausts, you can always swap them for 2D TVC once the technology is available.

    ===

    Also, inb4 Carlos Kopp complains that the J-21 is what the F-35 should have been.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    This is pretty much an F-35 copy, but there are a few differences.

    First, the wing loading on the J-21 is lower than on the F-35 A and B variants, although not the C variant, with a larger wing for its size.

    Unlike the F-35, the J-21 does not have bumps on the bottom to optimize its aerodynamic characteristics. This should improve all-aspect stealth slightly, but we don't know how good the Chinese are at stealth optimization in general.
    I thought the presence of F-35's bumps was to accommodate avionics and larger weapon bays due to lack of internal space?
    That is to say, everything else being equal (RAM etc), no bumps is superior to having bumps for VLO?

    The tailfins are larger on the J-21 than on the F-35, on a proportionate basis. This should increase stability somewhat, but will contribute to higher RCS.

    With regards to complaints about rear-stealth, the great thing about the J-21 is that it's a twin-engine design with the potential for optimization for all-aspect stealth. If you're complaining about unstealthy exhausts, you can always swap them for 2D TVC once the technology is available.
    Technically there's nothing stopping a single engined fighter being equipped with a flat nozzle.

    Also, inb4 Carlos Kopp complains that the J-21 is what the F-35 should have been.
    Hehe you did so for carlo kopp but bill sweetman beat you to it.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,134
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,022
    Now way this is PS or anything like that now. Let's hope we're gonna see the full shot (of the pic you posted) soon Deino.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,388
    Oh no, landing gear bays lack zig-zags!
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    Unlike the F-35, the J-21 does not have bumps on the bottom to optimize its aerodynamic characteristics.
    Those bumps have nothing to do with aerodynamic characteristics. F-35 has simply grown out outside of its frame, and has to have as much as possible, in the least possible space. It is as simple as that.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    LOL laughing so hard
    I do not think I will be doing any laughing until reliable estimates of the RCS of both aircraft become available. Amateur analysis is – to put it mildly – highly unreliable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tigershark View Post
    china can already make two stealth fighters but japan and korea cannot even make one
    Well, what did we expect? To date, Japan has developed only the F-1 and F-16-derived F-2. But what a downfall for South Korea’s aircraft designers, who have such a long track record of developing advanced jet fighters.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,022
    Not sure if these are enhacements of known pictures or they are actually newly released, but here are few details of the bird. Thanks to A.man at SDF.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	161506swbsxhq0igjbtnzy.jpg 
Views:	442 
Size:	53.5 KB 
ID:	208274   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	161507vxtrtvxrdzeufbmd.jpg 
Views:	414 
Size:	52.9 KB 
ID:	208275   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	161508dqsmoo9odko9so7q.jpg 
Views:	463 
Size:	50.5 KB 
ID:	208276   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	162355lv09aavl22vka94a.jpg 
Views:	2394 
Size:	52.9 KB 
ID:	208277   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1623540wah32iio8wnaln5.jpg 
Views:	400 
Size:	34.8 KB 
ID:	208278  


  17. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,022
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Oh no, landing gear bays lack zig-zags!
    No, look closely, the front one definitely have zigzags , bays have them too, and the main landing gear doors aswell, it may look like they don't because of the complex shape, imo.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,388
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    No, look closely, the front one definitely have zigzags , bays have them too, and the main landing gear doors aswell, it may look like they don't because of the complex shape, imo.
    I was kidding , remember certain people trumpeting the J-20s zig zags as uber stealth?
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Near Colombo, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    961
    Something weird about the way the engines fitted. Almost looks like they are too small to fit properly.

    PS: Don't think there is a tail-hook there -Image. There might be provisions for a tail-hook in the future, but I don't think this has one.
    Last edited by QuantumFX; 17th September 2012 at 10:59.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    59
    The Chinese have very poor engine technology; the first few instances will likely fly with Russian or outdated engines, and by having oversized engine compartments, they will be able to provide latitude if their final engine is oversize / overweight.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    US/EU/RU
    Posts
    4,724
    U.S. cyber security sucks badly ... or someone inside the beltway wants to make sure there's a half-way worthy opponent around. ;-)

    But nice looking bird actually, as far as one can tell from these pictures. More comments as soon as there are more of them out from different angles.
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    88
    Any estimation on the Width of the of the weapon bay. Can it hold 6 missiles?

    4bvr 2 short?

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Inst View Post
    The Chinese have very poor engine technology; the first few instances will likely fly with Russian or outdated engines, and by having oversized engine compartments, they will be able to provide latitude if their final engine is oversize / overweight.
    How can you tell??
    If we look at Russian Engines, they are neighter oversized, nor overweight.
    Infact, their engines have a very good T/W ratio.
    What Russian engines lack are good TBO and total life cyclus and in some cases a decent fuel consumption.

    As for Chinese jets, if they use Russian Engines.. well read above.

    We know very little about the WS-** engines series, so any input would be welcomed.
    Thanks

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    445
    Quote Originally Posted by Devils Advocate View Post
    Wow, the F-35 is really in trouble with that evaluation.
    who says the F-35 isn't in trouble? there's several threads and pages about the F-35's problems in this forum.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    342
    I guess the Chinese are better than you guys think. The J-20 and this new one comes out within only three years after supposed F-35 secrets were stolen?

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,679
    Urgh.

    The clowns that scream "COPY" are best ignored. They've obviously no f**king idea just how complex one of these machines is and how challenging they are to design.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    38
    I don't post on here very often, but this thread has prodded me into responding. I cannot for the life of me understand the people who are saying "copy", "not as good as F22/F35". For goodness sake grow up.

    If the Chinese manage to bring these two aircraft into production and sell lots of them worldwide, good luck to them. If it damages sales of Western products, well that's simply market forces, live with it. Just about everything has got "Made in China" stamped on it these days, so why not the latest generation fighters?

    Who knows, it might even encourage/compel Western manufacturers to cut their overblown prices. That can only be a positive thing. In fact, hmmm, I wonder how many the RAF could get for the same price we will be paying for the F35?

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    5,388
    Quote Originally Posted by andys View Post
    I don't post on here very often, but this thread has prodded me into responding. I cannot for the life of me understand the people who are saying "copy", "not as good as F22/F35". For goodness sake grow up.

    If the Chinese manage to bring these two aircraft into production and sell lots of them worldwide, good luck to them. If it damages sales of Western products, well that's simply market forces, live with it. Just about everything has got "Made in China" stamped on it these days, so why not the latest generation fighters?

    Who knows, it might even encourage/compel Western manufacturers to cut their overblown prices. That can only be a positive thing. In fact, hmmm, I wonder how many the RAF could get for the same price we will be paying for the F35?
    Do you have any basis that it is anywhere as capable in both performance and on-board systems?

    What I find more amusing is the attitude of "The Chinese did it, their own F-35" from several photos of a prototype with RD-93s.
    http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/9098/rsz11rsz3807.jpg

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by TR1 View Post
    Do you have any basis that it is anywhere as capable in both performance and on-board systems?
    Does it need to be 100% as capable? 90% of the capability for 75% of the price makes economic sense, if you believe CMD and his claim that the country is bust.

    With the 25% saving, buy a few more planes/train a few more pilots to make up the difference. Or build a few hospitals/schools.

    Not that the capability difference really matters that much, who does anyone envisage the UK taking on with an equal level of modern equipment these days? A Chinese jet with British electronics = good value and good capability?

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,014
    J-31 = 0.9 x F-35 ?

    I am not big fan of F-35, but LOL!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES