One of the 2 new plane projects of 2013 from China

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 57

This is allegedly one of the 2 new prototypes to take maiden flight in 2013
http://i48.tinypic.com/2vboadz.jpg

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 171

Of all the PLAAF airfleet modernisation, only their bomber fleet looks antiquated.

It's just a matter of time that a Chinese-equivalent of the B2 comes about....or remember that RQ-170 that came down in Iran? Already there were rumors that Chinese engineers were asking to take a look at that machine.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

First of all two questions or things to consider !

1. This is not a Chinese-equivalent of the B2 ... at best similar to the X-47B.

2. What will be the second of these two new projects to be unveiled in 2013 ?

Deino

Member for

16 years 4 months

Posts: 594

If the black blob on the right at the hanger door is a person then it's not very big. The nose of the aircraft would only be head high.

At best a sub scale model

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 2,120

Of all the PLAAF airfleet modernisation, only their bomber fleet looks antiquated.

Both the Yanks and the Russians use some quite old bombers themselves - B-52 and Tu-95.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

Both the Yanks and the Russians use some quite old bombers themselves - B-52 and Tu-95.

True, but they also both use far more modern planes.

The Chinese bomber force is pretty much all antiquated.

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 136

Bomber is a costy(in terms of maintenace & safty of the crew) aggresive weapon, whose fire range can be covered by balistic missles/cruise missles/fighter-bombers/long range rocketry artilllery.

I dont think wasting time and money on stealthy bombers is a wise desicion once you master the 100+ tons class transporters. Spend it on AWACS or sth else.

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

If the black blob on the right at the hanger door is a person then it's not very big. The nose of the aircraft would only be head high.

At best a sub scale model


If that blob is indeed a person, it would be similar in size to X-47b

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 136

X-47bs is either a stealth UAV that carries more ammunition or a reuseable reprogramable cluster cruise missle. At least at this stage, it can't beat human pilots in dog fights.

Member for

12 years 5 months

Posts: 40

If that blob is indeed a person, it would be similar in size to X-47b

If this person is around 1.7m tall, I'd guess the wingspan of this thing could be around 10x1.7m. so possibly a little smaller than x47b but definitely larger than Dassault nEUROn which has quite similar shape with it based on previous reports.

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,059

Bomber is a costy(in terms of maintenace & safty of the crew) aggresive weapon, whose fire range can be covered by balistic missles/cruise missles/fighter-bombers/long range rocketry artilllery.

I dont think wasting time and money on stealthy bombers is a wise desicion once you master the 100+ tons class transporters. Spend it on AWACS or sth else.

There is no fighter-bomber, cruise missle, etc. that can come close to delivering the mass tons of bombs a Blackjack, B-2 or even B-52 can deliver.
If you are a grunt on the ground and need heavy air support you would be exceptionally glad they still exist.

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

There is no fighter-bomber, cruise missle, etc. that can come close to delivering the mass tons of bombs a Blackjack, B-2 or even B-52 can deliver.

If you are a grunt on the ground and need heavy air support you would be exceptionally glad they still exist.

With Blackjack especially I'd be worried it was about to drop a nuke or carpet bomb my own position... :p

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 9,579

With Blackjack especially I'd be worried it was about to drop a nuke or carpet bomb my own position... :p

Yeah the Blackjack is very proficient in both roles.

:p

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 136

There is no fighter-bomber, cruise missle, etc. that can come close to delivering the mass tons of bombs a Blackjack, B-2 or even B-52 can deliver.
If you are a grunt on the ground and need heavy air support you would be exceptionally glad they still exist.

but before they turn their big butts back and heading your location, you will probably be served by enemy artilleries first.

And that solves the mystery why they call you a grunt.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 4,082

Ähhhm ....and can we please stay on the topic ?? YES, the B-52 is fine, the Tu-95/142 too and the Tu-160 even more ... but what the hell has this to to to the topic ???

Deino :mad:

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

It kinda sucks that all these aircraft look the same. Although it certainly demonstrates that similar requirements paired with similar levels of technology generate similar solutions.

I wonder who'll be next to join the UCAV game: Japan, Korea, Turkey... Brazil? Does Israel have something in this armed/subsonic/turbofan/VLO category?

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

It kinda sucks that all these aircraft look the same. Although it certainly demonstrates that similar requirements paired with similar levels of technology generate similar solutions.

I wonder who'll be next in the game: Japan, Korea, Turkey... Brazil?

The thing that will eventually seperate such systems, would be the INSIDE, the software, the architectur brain and the sensor suite. That is what will determine the tricks it can perform such as autonomous operations (Without DL), Carrier ops, Multiple mountable missions etc. US is not going in for such aircraft (X-45, X47 type) so its upto europe and who so ever is next to make maximum use .

Member for

13 years 5 months

Posts: 3,381

The thing that will eventually seperate such systems, would be the INSIDE, the software, the architectur brain and the sensor suite.

Yes, yes, but that is all very boring to lay observer, at least once you get past the first capability/acronym layer (e.g. 'has LPI'). :p

US is not going in for such aircraft (X-45, X47 type) so its upto europe and who so ever is next to make maximum use .

Wot? No intention of following X-47 with production aircraft? :confused:

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 5,396

I would speculate it is a maritime reconnaissance UAV similar in concept to MQ-4C Triton. Except it would be stealthy and could get close enough to geolocate carrier strike groups for attack by ballistic missiles and cruise missile armed JH-7s and H-6s

Wot? No intention of following X-47 with production aircraft?
US Navy has repeatedly stated that X-47 is only an experiment with no follow-on operational capability. Pentagon has dictated the Navy's role. Any UAV flown off a ship will be used for counter terrorism. That is not an X-47 like UAV.

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,286

The thing that will eventually seperate such systems, would be the INSIDE, the software, the architectur brain and the sensor suite. That is what will determine the tricks it can perform such as autonomous operations (Without DL), Carrier ops, Multiple mountable missions etc. US is not going in for such aircraft (X-45, X47 type) so its upto europe and who so ever is next to make maximum use .

Whosoever has the best software engineers- wins (as hardware is or will be available COTS).

I wouldn't hold your breath on truly autonomous systems, if you mean anything more than pre-programmed flight/strike profiles with relatively basic threat avoidance and target discrimination/prioritisation due to sensor fusion.

There will be a 'man in the loop' for a long, long time to come and so called 'artificial intelligence' systems are likely to be a huge anti-climax, if one hopes for 'hollywood style' platforms.

Here the eminent physicist Sir Roger Penrose explains why, from 0:38mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5XYf1GJBhg

Am I reading this right?! There are NO plans for series production of the X-47B!! I'm hugely disappointed (it's my favourite US aircraft):mad:.

Member for

19 years 9 months

Posts: 12,109

Wot? No intention of following X-47 with production aircraft?

USN, is mainly interested in getting a UCAV/UAV land and take off from a carrier . They will not be operationalizing the X-47. As per my knowledge, they may wish for a similar system for recon but not for strike. The USAF and the USN does not need a system that carries a similar load to the stealth/VLO assets they have (F-22, F-35). They want to spend a HUGE ammount of developmental effort (80-100 Billion Dollars) on developing a successor to the B-2 (LRB) that can in the future be optionally manned. For the USAF/USN getting a strategic, global range bomber is of higher concern in the 2025-2040 time frame. The X-45.X-47 etc though cool will only establish technologies for future use, they will not be operationalized.

I wouldn't hold your breath on truly autonomous systems, if you mean anything more than pre-programmed flight/strike profiles with relatively basic threat avoidance and target discrimination/prioritisation due to sensor fusion.

Having a man control it from far, makes them prone to jamming and interference. So i agree it is Far far out, but the eventual goal has to be intelligent, autonomous ops to give you the highest success rate. With DARPA and US DOD that is very high on a list of priorities, and you will see a lot of tech demonstrators showing up in the coming decades that will show greater and greater autonomy.

Whosoever has the best software engineers- wins (as hardware is or will be available COTS).

I have seen the best software teams completely screw up software development because of poor planning and management. So the quality of software engineers, and their experience with defense products is very important, but management and maintaining a defense industrial base is equally important.

Am I reading this right?! There are NO plans for series production of the X-47B!! I'm hugely disappointed (it's my favourite US aircraft).

Like i mentioned above, the X-47 doesnt really provide much capability to the USN/USAF given that essentially it is a VLO asset that puts light-medium load onto a target. That is being done by the F-22 and F-35 anyways (at a tactical level). What the DOD has decided is that they need a Higher more survivable strategic asset. This lead to the non starter FB22 and the NGB both of which were not considered true "strategic" assets ..

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-usaf-targets-long-range-strike-bomber-377597/