SGW06Its hard to bring out new designs when your economy is down the gutter and the only way your aerospace companies manage to survive is because of rapid expansion of two of your biggest customers. To be fair, all the later model fourth gens are endless mods and rehashes of existing designs, because the designs are good enough, can accommodate better avionics and powerful engines.
PS : I think it was just last month that PRC publicly unveiled a bird which was more or less a mod an rehash of a legacy soviet era naval design, displaying minimal ingenuity or innovation. Its funny, I have trouble recalling it, can you help me with it ? :diablo:
Which kind explain why China even leg behind of you in some areas now in the first place…:diablo::diablo::diablo:
If China were able to spend near the amount of money like you did for the past 50 years, I bet China will be far far ahead of you by now in aviation techs.
You know, China only begin to invest significantly in military science since 1999, and then, the amount of money poured there is still roughly 20% to 30% comparing the ****load of money your poured annually during cold-war era.
Yet China now basically can carries out basically everything military projects the US can afford to carry, with only 1/6 of the military spending of USA now and only 1/3 of the military spending-to-GDP rate comparing to USA.
With an economy that is about to surpass USA in absoultely GDP number soon, you can see why more senior and smarter USA military/civil leaders are not very optimstic about the coming arms race with China.:diablo::diablo::diablo:
You know, kind like a 17-year-old guy, who has only begin to play basketball for 3 months, yet already can challege Shaq O’neal at his prime time…
But of cause, the less informed, simplier minded people can continously to prefer to live comfortably in a fool’s paradise as long as they want:diablo::diablo::diablo:
SGW06What nonsense. China’s nuclear submarine program isn’t anywhere near the same scope, nor is aircraft procurement, both rotary and fixed wing, nor is surface warship production…:rolleyes:
When China stops operating MiG-21 copies and T-55 knock offs, maybe we can talk.
Last time I check PLAAF recieved roughly 80 new combat fighters/fighter-bombers per year, more than any other countries in the world.:diablo:
They also purchased the most numbers of new MBTs as well.
As for nucluear submarines? they have their new models like 095/096 as well (you should be able to see the new 095 this year), and one reason China has not paid much attention on SSBN is because for them SSBN is not as usually as land-based ICBMs due to their geographic locations, etcs.:diablo:
SGW06China has nearly 5 times the US population…US will have more to spend on defense for a long long time.
More like 4X, and now even Goldman Sachs predicted China’s GDP, measured by dollar, will surpass USA by 2017.
Actually despite of China now only spend a fraction (1.4% of GDP, in constrast to 5% for the case of USA) on their national defence comparing to the USA, they are now able to fund basically every military projects USA could have funded and even more than that.
Which suggesting China may actually has far more resource and financially far stronger than USA even by now, and if there will be an all-out arms race in the near future, USA is likely to fall short.
Thats why you can see China now is not very interested in talks about arms-control with USA, because they know time is well on their side :diablo::diablo::diablo:
SGW06right, I even forgot to mention. What we are jumping around about J-10 avionics are all something had been in service for a decade. This is not the case of F-22 vs J-20 comparison.
This is a AESA era
What is MMR?
sth on paper?
There are many official Chinese sources for AESA radars on figthers:
For instance this official one shows:
http://xy.nuaa.edu.cn/xyh/news.aspx?id=612
In 2008, national insistute of radar research has their AESA radar for the next generation fighter ready, its X-brand, and the vice-commander of airforce, Jing Wenchun accepted the radar and said he is pleased that one of the two technique obstacles facing (radar and engines) J-XX project has been overcomed.
Note that national insitute of radar research is the minor airborne radar research center in China, there is one far bigger and finanically stronger radar research insitute, the 14th insitute, and it seems that for J-XX project, eventually 14th insistue won the competition, so I suspect 14th insitute’s AESA radar for J-XX should also have been ready by 2008, if not earlier.
And this one shows:
http://www.81mil.com/Article/Print.asp?ArticleID=1895
Again, about national insitute of radar research, in 2010, enter the competition with a formidable oppoent (14th insistue) in an open competition of airborne AESA radar for some fighter about to enter production (most likely J-10B), and the airforce is encourging national insistue of radar research that they should not fear the competition and should work hard for the national defence despite of the results, which suggesting actually they, most likely, lost the bid to 14th Insistue again.
SGW06Any hint what we can expect this year:
– Y-20 roll-out
– J-15 … finally some close-ups
– J-16 “Silent Flanker” unveiling ?
– another secret project from SAC … rumoured to be a JH-type
– some UAV’s
– …. ???Tell us more …. 😀
Deino
In the coming few years (e.g. <5 years) we should be able to see:
Some new UAVs (bombers, X-37,X-47 like, etcs)
Y-20
Hard-kill laser-weapon system (land based and on-ship ones) and other missile defense systems (HQ-26)
New IRBMs
New ICBMs
New stealth fighter-bombers
New SSN
Some space weapons/ASAT/BMD etcs.
Wave-riding unmanned Bomber
Conventional manned Stealth Bomber
Unmanned Stealth fighters
Air carriers
DDG-1000-like warships
New SSBN
New six-engined heavy cargo plane (Y-30?)
Anyway, we should get used to a superpower acts like a superpower :diablo::diablo::diablo:
As for this year along, I will add some laser-weapons and IRBMs to your list :diablo::diablo::diablo:
SGW06The primary problem with indians are, the poor west media fool them believing in the fantasy as if there is a real competition between China and India now :diablo::diablo::diablo:
And it seems that J-20 has driven alot of guys crazy :diablo::diablo::diablo:
I am really afraid of many people’s health in the future, since by all means, J-20 is merely a start, actually this year along, there will be lots more goodies shows up in China, I think the “evidences” that will show in this year will be enough to STFU even the most deluded boys in the world. :diablo::diablo::diablo:
SGW06right.
on to the second question:
if I give up a cambered airfoil, upper surface curved. bottom surface flat. where do you expect its zero alpha lift is? is it positive (meaning upwards) or negative (meaning downwards) or zero?actually no need for that deep, just basic stuff would do us fine.
Are you trying to play with words here?
Of cause strictly speaking it depend on the upper half shape and lower half shape and the total area against the intensity pressure generated.
Following your logic, I cannot say SU-27’s blending wing or their main wings actually creates lift or not either.
So in this regard, maybe Su-27/PAK-FA is probably worse than the MIG-21’s body since it may actually creats negative force instead of lift.:diablo:
Using your logic OK?
SGW06Let me make sure that this is your answer,
so you are telling me that it is your belief that:
a body which has its lower surface curved and upper surface flat, would generate upwards lift when it’s incidents to the airstream is at 0 degrees.is my description of your answer correct?
Exactly, just like the picture indicates.:diablo:
Btw, I am quite familiar with N-S equations and Bernoulli’s equation, so you can feel free to go ahead to show your amaterism:diablo:
SGW06A lifting body is an aerodynamic body where lift is provided almost exclusively by the fuselage and wing area is minimized or nonexistent. Plenty of aircraft generate “body lift” but that does not make them lifting bodies, as they still primarily generate lift via their wings. The Wikipedia article you cited could have told you this.
The combination of amaterism and aerodynamicism-wannabe-ness at its finest
:diablo::diablo::diablo:
SGW06all the bs aside,
will you or will you not answer my first question?
I will re-post the question les you did not understood it properly:
” the cross section you attached with your first post on this issue. please do tell us which way the lift vector goes if alpha = 0? “the theory is indeed very simple. but not as you think.
…
btw, you are right theoritical aerodynamics is not my speciality, I just understood enough of it to get by so I can do my other job.
Aint that quite obviously?
The combined force should go somewhat upwards and somewhat backwards.
SGW06Airborne AWACS will be useless against LO fighters equipped with most likely ramjet-powered A-A missiles.
Even if we assuming that AWACS can spot a LO fighter at 150 km away, it is stilll too late to react.
Considering the fact a LO fighter sneaked some 150 km away from a AWACS and throw a 150km+ ranged ramjet A-A missile (with an active seeker) at the AWACS then shut down its radar and return to base.
Then assuming the AWACS flee to some random direction immediately, then:
(1)It will only takes ~2 mins for the A-A missile to reach the original location of the AWACS.
(2)Meanwhile the Boeing-737-like AWACS can at best move some 25-30km away from its original location.
(3) If the active-seeker installed on the A-A missile can track something with a RCS as big as a Boeing 737 for a range of >25-30 km+, then the AWACS will most likely get shot-down.
SGW06I will indulge you. since it has some technical merit.
When you cannot offer any meaningful “technique” comeback, you don’t need to write anything to demonstrate your inablity to talk techinquely.:diablo:
So far, we can clearly see I am the only one here who provide sources and cite references, so I guess your retreat is well expected.
Next time trying to figure out the difference between a subsonic power-less lifting-body demonstrator from a re-entry vehicle before even trying to pretend as if you know anything here.:diablo:
SGW06again, I think you have missed my entire point.
I AM AWARE THAT LIFTING BODIES EXIST.
what I am object to is the willy-nilly way you applied the concept here with respect to Fighters in particular, and particularly the F-22/T-50/J-20 trio.
It is wrong because 1) how flow interact on the body and generate lift is different btw a HL-20 and a F22, 2) the proper way to qualitative and quantatively describe the issue is not what you described and should not be talked about seperatedly from the entire vehicle. i.e. just because of fuselage is shaped a certain way in its crossection does not mean it will have good lift characteristics!
I really hope you finish read my above comments and seriously digest it before posting more useless information. :rolleyes:
LOOOL, SO you are trying to deny that F-22 is a lifting-body design?
And I am all ears about your proper way to qualitative and quantatively describe that how F-22 is not lifting-body and whilst SU-27 is
Just show me my dare amatuerish pesudo aerodynamicist, for some boy who can mistaken wingless aircraft for re-entry vehicle I am quite eager to hear their quantitive studies on some area obviously they have little idea about, LOL
:diablo::diablo::diablo:
SGW06I cannot believe the amaterism demonstrated by some of our memebers.
How difficult to understand such a simple concept like lifting-body?
Are you a ART-majored or dropout before high-school?
Go get some elemental education if you have a hard time in understanding the bloody simple concept that body can generates lift just like wings if designed properly hence the name lifting-body.:diablo:
SGW06That wiki article cited many sources and you r just very good at dodging, aint you?
NASA paper regarding their lifting-body demonstrators:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87710main_H-373.pdf
http://www1.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87762main_H-545.pdf
http://mynasa1.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87840main_H-757.pdf
Aerodynamic study about an lifting-body concept aircrafts:
http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A9256771AH
http://silentaircraft.org/object/download/1946/doc/AIAA-2007-451-147.pdf
Books on wing-less pure lifting-body design of aircraft:
And I have show you AIRCRAFTS WITH PURE LIFTING-BODY DESIGN WITHOUT WINGS, just get over with it.
Sign In
