Really? that looks more like a display piece at an trade show than one of the T-50’s five radars. A trade piece that is designed to be retro fitted to old Flanker aircraft to act as a datalink I might add.
I don’t know where you chaps dream this stuff up.

I think it would be better for you to make sense of the lines that are posted on the board next to that device before making such statement.
Honestly, I think many people this day like to jump to conclusions without doing the research. Or they think it’s better to flame it and let the other sides research and explain it may be 😮

Also for Scooter,
Please continue up with the name dropping 😀 I find that really interesting. Too many fancy terms I have never heard before 😀

http://oi52.tinypic.com/24zkjfp.jpg
The ‘side weapon bay’ can be faintly recognized in this picture. However, I think it’s more of a displaced panel to mark the location of the bay on the real thing rather than real weapon bay. But still we need more pictures.

So for now we have 2 J-20 prototypes? One for ground testing with Al-31 series and one flying with WS-series engines? :confused:

J-12 was not produced
J-12 was powered by a chinese version of the Tumansky RD-9 engine

this J-20 could be the first Chinese fighter where the entire design, from radar to engine, is original.

Still I am really curious about the engine 😀 Looking at lift off of the plane in the first flight I think J-20 and F-22 have similar lift-off 😎

This J-20 definitely has a center belly weapon bay to house ammunition.

First people doubt Chinese can make a 5th gen in such short time.

When prototype appear, they doubt its the real thing and even claim it just mock up.

Suddenly , it can moves and doing hi speed taxi trial

People claim they doubt this thing can fly and is just gimmick, running around airfield to do publicity stunt.

Then it start to fly and people claim it has no weapon bay.

How many times you want the Chinese to prove you wrong??? :rolleyes:

Well what we are debating is that if this particular prototype (demonstrator) already had the weapon bay 😮
It’s not that we think that it will not have a weapon bay ever :rolleyes:
So chill out guy!

Right WW, so many questions and possibilities, so little hard info.

There has been mention of a Chinese OTH radar capability that can locate a CBG up to 3000Km distant with enough precision to generate targeting data.

DIRCM is a possibility. Who knows, even a railgun anti-missle capability might be in the cards down the road along with lasers. For all we know, SM-3 might be very capable of handling the threat in the eyes of the USN but they’re keeping this info close to the vest for the moment. Its like a chess game but with some of the pieces hidden.

Looking at the surmised DF-21 flight profile above, it would seem that it is following a ballistic trajectory up to the mid-segment burn. After said burn, I’m guessing it returns to a ballistic trajectory until its terminal guidance mode kicks in and it starts final maneuvering to target. I’m guessing that it would be at its most vulnerable to interception by SM-3 for the first ballistic phase outside the atmosphere and via SM-2 during the second ballistic phase which would be at a lower altitude. Just my guess though..

Honestly I am kind of doubtful about China’s ability to use DF-21 and hit US CBG. Here are some issues that persists:
-Tracking and fire control issues:
+Two ways to track CBG, either satellite systems (Legenda of the Soviet) or ground-based radar.
+For satellites system, I am not sure if China has a satellite systems that are online and capable of detecting, tracking and provide accurate position of the CBG to the DF-21.
+As for ground-based radar, they are long wavelength radar in order to provide long range detection over the horizon. As a result, the accuracy will be low. So in order to hit the CBGs, the DF-21 with its MARV must have sufficient tracking capacity (active radars and steerable). The MARV will come down with really high speed and the integration of radar for it will not be easy to accomplish.

-Steering issues: the DF-21 is a ballistic missile, to be able to make them maneuverable and yet still accurate for anti-ship purpose is hard.

Of course if the China decided to fit Nuke on those DF-21s, it might be different 😀

Just my 2 cents.

This two are different for sure I think. May be the 1st one is an attemp by China co create flying F-22 drones for their air defenses to shoot down 😀

During the course of the war, the VPAF would use the MiG-17, MiG-17F, MiG-17PF, MiG-19, MiG-21F-13, MiG-21PF, MiG-21PFM, and MiG-21MF in combat. The ground radars included the P-12 Spoon Rest, P-15 Flat Face, P-35 Bar Lock, and PRV-11 Side Net. Their surface to air missiles consisted of SA-7, S-75 (SA-2 / Fan Song), S-125 (SA-3 / Low Blow). They also used radar directed AAA in the form of SON-4 (with the S-60 single-barrel 57mm gun), SON-9 Firecan (using both the S-60 57mm and KS-19 100mm), and the SON-50 Flap Wheel (again using S-60 57mm). The Russians and Chinese equipped them with quite a few optically-aimed guns (both towed and self-propelled) ranging anywhere from 12.7mm to 57mm.

Hi Madrat, thanks to the “brilliance” of our comrade China, we actually don’t have the SA-3 until after the bombing of the US ended. They were trapped on China railroad system in the meantime, either intentionally and unintentionally.
Another thing is that Vietnam SA-2 were severely damaged by flood before the Linebackers so in many cases they don’t have enough missiles for operational use.
However I still think your point is valid that Vietnam at that time had a decent air defense system.