J-XX Fighter Aircraft

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The J-XX is China's fighter of the future. Designed to counter the F-22 and JSF, the J-XX will be China's first generation fighter. What are you views on the J-XX? When do you think it will fly, how will it stack up to figthers like the F-22, JSF, MCA, and PAK FA?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

In my opinion, the first J-XX prototype will fly by 2008, and it might be operational by 2012, if the PRC can supply it with adequate funding. I think it will be roughly the same in performance as the F-22, although with worse avionics.

[SABRE]

2012 is early may be 3 years later in 2015. I believe J-XX may come into JSF-35's league but will lack in capability compared to F-22. Not much info on it so cant say much.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Most sources I have come across give the year 2015 as a possible date for the J-XX to be operational. I think that with increased funding, they may be able to speed up the process. But then again, 9 mothers cannot have a baby in 1 month.

[ger_mark]

in 2015 there will be different unmanned combat planes and bombers in europe/usa
just take a look on eads site

[MIGleader]

it took ten years to make j-10 fly, and another 5 to make it operational.
i think j-xx will be operational around 2020

[ultrafang]

I think it will come out some time between 2012-2016. But here's a pic to amuse you guys.
It's just a F-22 + some chinese buildings....But some poeple do belive it's the JXX ;) because of it exsost.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v621/ultra89/771326_564713429.jpg

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Those pictures resemble the YF-23 Black Widow. They share the same general wing shape.

[MIGleader]

hehehe...
if an f-22 was flying over china, there should be flankers and missles on it's tail...

[Wingman]

Those pictures resemble the YF-23 Black Widow. They share the same general wing shape.
YF-23 has hybrid vertical/horizontal stabilisers, dunno what the proper name is called but it looks like a V-shape. The one in the pic has separate V/H stabilisers, more likely to be F-22

[FriedRiceNSpice]

YF-23 has hybrid vertical/horizontal stabilisers, dunno what the proper name is called but it looks like a V-shape. The one in the pic has separate V/H stabilisers, more likely to be F-22

It is called the Black Widow.

[Wingman]

It is called the Black Widow.
Huh :confused: I'm referring to the tail configuration, not the whole plane

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Huh :confused: I'm referring to the tail configuration, not the whole plane

:o Oh. Opps. Sorry.

[Obcession]

Looks like a F22 from the basic shape.

[MIGleader]

the question is, how did the ps'r get such an obscure image of an f-22?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

the question is, how did the ps'r get such an obscure image of an f-22?

You take a normal F-22, and then blur it out and reduce the quality of the picture. Or, you find a picture someone have taken of an F-22 from a long distance.

[chinawhite]

that picture is 100% a F-22.

[PiSigma]

the F-XX would still be in the design stages, a prototype can't even be produced yet, so there's no way something like that would be flying. mass production of F-XX would be 2015 at the earliest, but by then USAF/USN would have hundreds of F-22 already.

[tphuang]

I read a Chinese site that claimed the first prototype of J-14 would come out 2005/2006 and the testing can begin in 2008. It also said that J-14 would definitely not be in the same class as F-22, but more in the league of Eurofighter.

[MIGleader]

yeah right! the j-xx is still on the drawing board. making a prototype in a yaer is impossble.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

China has more than one J-xx project going. One is currently being worked on by Institute 601, the other by Instutiute 611. One is designed to be a clear counter to the F-22, while the other will be built with slightly less advanced technology.

[tphuang]

one is J-14, the other is J-15?

if you can read Chinese
http://cn.bbs.yahoo.com/message/read_arms_1738.html
same article http://www.chinapro.com/bbs/bbs/bbs1.cgi?menu=show&slttitle=20050722002535&id=2&see=26
same article
http://jczs.sina.com.cn/bbs/2005/0810/0843411.html

not sure if the person is just posting bs though, but the same article basically appears in 3 different places.

Another article claims that PLAAF is trying to get J-14, J-15, J-16, J-17, Q-7, JH-8 and H-9 developed before 2020
http://military.netbirds.com/26/33672.htm

[FriedRiceNSpice]

one is J-14, the other is J-15?

Well, they could also be J-9, J-12, or J-13. Currently, the PLAAF does not have any fighter aircraft with those designations.

[Vlad Plasmius]

I think J-9 will probably be FC-1 and J-XX will be J-12 and J-13.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I think J-9 will probably be FC-1 and J-XX will be J-12 and J-13.

That is, if the PLAAF decides to order the FC-1. As of now, the FC-1 does not the meet the requirements of the PLAAF, which opted for the J-10 instead. It is unclear if the FC-1 will ever enter service with the PLAAF.

[MIGleader]

one is J-14, the other is J-15?

if you can read Chinese
http://cn.bbs.yahoo.com/message/read_arms_1738.html
same article http://www.chinapro.com/bbs/bbs/bbs1.cgi?menu=show&slttitle=20050722002535&id=2&see=26
same article
http://jczs.sina.com.cn/bbs/2005/0810/0843411.html

not sure if the person is just posting bs though, but the same article basically appears in 3 different places.

Another article claims that PLAAF is trying to get J-14, J-15, J-16, J-17, Q-7, JH-8 and H-9 developed before 2020
http://military.netbirds.com/26/33672.htm

THat is complete bullshit. i think the pla can get j-14 before 2020, but I doubt their will be follow ups. Time will come for UAVS. 7 aircraft in 15 years!!! never will happen.

As for fc-1, the plane does seem like a viable cheap solution to replace the old fishbeds, but is such a massive airforce really neccaserry? I believe the pla should concentrate more on aquiring j-10s and flankers. maybe a create a trial squadron of 50 or so, but no more.

[Chairman Hu]

I say screw the J-10 and just use it to export, buy MKK3s and hold off until China gets the J-XX like 750 as once Reagan wanted 750 Raptors during the end of the Cold War, J-XX will be built in 2 ver, one for pure air superiority but retains the ability for ground strike and the second version will be for training(maybe) and for ground strike, like the J-10

[FriedRiceNSpice]

The J-10 fills the same role as the FC-1. Both aircraft are in the same class, being single-engine fighters. However, the J-10 is heavier and can carry a greater payload, as well as being more advanced. The PLAAF does not need to aircraft to do the same role. The J-10 is not that much more expensive than the FC-1. The J-10 is expected to cost around $20-$25 million, while the FC-1 is around $14-$18 million.

[tphuang]

THat is complete bullshit. i think the pla can get j-14 before 2020, but I doubt their will be follow ups. Time will come for UAVS. 7 aircraft in 15 years!!! never will happen.

As for fc-1, the plane does seem like a viable cheap solution to replace the old fishbeds, but is such a massive airforce really neccaserry? I believe the pla should concentrate more on aquiring j-10s and flankers. maybe a create a trial squadron of 50 or so, but no more.
have you noticed that China has stopped acquiring the low level flankers that Russians are offering? I say hold off on buying su-27 series, until the Russians offer something equal to what they offered to the Indians. Just load up on the J-10s and FC-1 (used to replace the F-7s we have).

[chinawhite]

yeah right! the j-xx is still on the drawing board. making a prototype in a yaer is impossble.

Not really. if all the materials engine radar are already really it could happen.

the body could be made of the composites used on the J-10 and the WS-10A engine. with a secret chinese radar?

how about that :p

[tphuang]

never mind, kanwa just stated that the article I listed is completely false.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Why get FC-1s? J-10 is so much better! A J-10 is cheaper yet better than basic Su-27s, Mig-29s, F-16s, and F-15s.

[tphuang]

Why get FC-1s? J-10 is so much better! A J-10 is cheaper yet better than basic Su-27s, Mig-29s, F-16s, and F-15s.
once we get a TVC engine (I wonder what the cost of WS-10A is), better radar and add dsi, J-10 will get more expensive.

[FriedRiceNSpice]

once we get a TVC engine (I wonder what the cost of WS-10A is), better radar and add dsi, J-10 will get more expensive.

You could produce two different type of J-10 variants. The J-10A could be the primary fighter for the PLAAF, used to replace the J-7s. The J-10C could be used as a more of an elite fighter, designed to counter the best of the enemy fighters.

[tphuang]

I don't know, even if we get 2 production lines going, that's still only 50 planes a year. If we have FC-1 going at the same time, we'd get like 100 planes to replace them every year. We need to replace the J-7s fast!!!

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I don't know, even if we get 2 production lines going, that's still only 50 planes a year. If we have FC-1 going at the same time, we'd get like 100 planes to replace them every year. We need to replace the J-7s fast!!!

Well, you could modify the FC-1 production lines to produce J-10s. Or you can build entirely new production lines. Either way, it doesn't matter which fighter you build at your production lines, so why not take the J-10 instead of the FC-1?

[Chairman Hu]

SCREW THE FC-1

Really, just do as what most of the people have said, the J-10 WILL PWN the FC-1 in a fight, so what if it's 10 million apart, "IT'S THE PRICE THAT'S RIGHT"

the J-10 uses a WS-10, and didn't a TVC ver. showed up at the Zhuhai airshow not too long ago, even if the FC-1 is going to be less, develop on a new engine with TVC instead of having one that has TVC will jack up the price

What's the point of the FC-1? Stick it to Exporting!

[MIGleader]

have you noticed that China has stopped acquiring the low level flankers that Russians are offering? I say hold off on buying su-27 series, until the Russians offer something equal to what they offered to the Indians. Just load up on the J-10s and FC-1 (used to replace the F-7s we have).

china does not need to buy any more flankers. china already has 36 su-27s, 95 j-11s, and 100 su-30's. plus they have a liscence to build 105 mor j-11's with multirole capability, so that ensures a good supply of future flankers. concentrate on the j-10. we know they will have around 150, since they already have 50, and just ordered 100 more engines.

150+36+200+100=486 modern combat aircraft for china.

the j-8s still have some design potential, like a double delta wing and new radar and missles.

what china really needs to do is help it's bomber force. get 100 su-32's and a dozen backfires.

this will make sure china has a decent airforce until j-xx comes out.

btw, russia didn't offer india any better. the indians just upped their su-30's with tvc and french avionics. china could do the same.

[Totoro]

I've been seeing different number for the su27 family in the hands of PLAAF and PLAN.

24 su30mk2 with the PLAN, probably optimised for naval attack
76 su30mkk with the PLAAF, multirole air and ground attack AC with the ability to carry pretty much every weapon russians have in their inventory
105 J11 with an option to make another 95 (you had it other way around) but it seems those 95 will never be built, certainly not as su27SK licenced planes but something more multirole.
and finally 76 (not 36) Su27SK.

Trouble with SKs and J11s, of course being their inablity to carry any guided ground and sea attack weapons. Majority of them can't even carry R77s, i think just later produced J11 got slightly modified to be able to do that.

That being said i read about a $5 million a piece modification prog for all the SKs and J11s, making them multirole aircraft, among other stuff.

As for the engines, doesn't su27 use the same engine j10 uses? some of those 100 engines could be used for repair and maintenance of other aircraft than j10s. Also, one engine doesn't mean one aircraft, there's always a reserve for maintenance.

To sum it up, assuming there are some 30 J10s operational, China has 311 4th generation fighters by this date.

I do agree that china would seriously need some capable attack aircraft in serious numbers. Not necesarrily bombers like the backfire but su32 would do just great. That and making j8II into serious interceptor platforms, able to track and attack targets with newest AAMs.

[Chairman Hu]

I think we all be happy if somehow the J-8 planes were turned into interceptors of the MiG-31 class, somehow...

[MIGleader]

the reason that it's 36 su-27's is that 40 of them are the UBK trainers. however, it is possible to use the ubks in an attack. if china wants to have multirole fighters, it should upgrade it's ubks and add another seat to the sk's using the ubk design.

[tphuang]

we do need some su-32FN, I wonder how good the JH-7As really are. Apparently, China is repeatedly changing the specs for new JH-7As, I guess to make it match up better with su-30mk and su-34

[MIGleader]

yeah right!!! the j-7a is still underpowered and cant carry as many wepons. it definitly does not have the same ground support ability as the su-32.

[tphuang]

yeah right!!! the j-7a is still underpowered and cant carry as many wepons. it definitly does not have the same ground support ability as the su-32.
we all know it's less capable, but it's come a long way. If China can get the production right and ToT for su-30mkk2, it might be able to improve JH-7A a little more.

btw, there are also more J-11B in China's arsenal right now. So, there are more J-11s then the number you guys listed.

[adeptitus]

The J-10 is a good domestic aviation program to produce multi-role capable light combat aircraft similiar to the F-16, MiG-29, or Mirage-2000. It's a good replacement for the J-6 & J-7 fleet.

The JH-7 is serving with PLAAF's naval aviation and probably serves similiar capability as Dassault Super Etendard or Mirage F-1 configured for naval strike missions, with 2-4 air-launched anti-ship missiles.

The Su-30 is prolly a better strike aircraft, but the problem here is that the Russians might not want to assist the PRC in integrating domestically made missiles (C-802/C-803) with Sukhoi aircraft. Instead, they'd prefer to sell China their own missiles.

So if you want a platform for launching C-802/C-803 missiles, you might be stuck with your own aircraft. It's not the best but not bad either. Imagine a future scenario where you send a pair of JH-7A's, each armed with 4x LACM's, against a surface target. The JH-7A's can launch their munitions from as far as 400 km away and escape, and you only need 12.5% hit rate (from 8 missiles) to mission-kill most targets.

[Totoro]

The JH-7A's can launch their munitions from as far as 400 km away and escape,

I don't wanna sound evil and not trusting but please do try to provide your best source for that claim for us to see/read, i'm really curious. Are you talking about some version of c-803 having such a range, even when air launched?

[MIGleader]

i dont believe it at all

[tphuang]

I don't wanna sound evil and not trusting but please do try to provide your best source for that claim for us to see/read, i'm really curious. Are you talking about some version of c-803 having such a range, even when air launched?
maybe YJ-85? I doubt 400 KM, but 350KM might be possible in a hi-lo profile.

[MIGleader]

i would not put the yj-85 at anything over 300. i believe the missle can due 200 km, at most 200-250.

[MadMax]

why would china want the SU 32 if they dont have an aircraft carrier the SU 34 is the ground version of the 32 without carrier gear so the 34 might be cheaper also

[tphuang]

i would not put the yj-85 at anything over 300. i believe the missle can due 200 km, at most 200-250.
You are wrong. Don't let those numbers on the sinodefense page fool you. Check this article: http://mil.jschina.com.cn/Get/NET/09022000310.htm
This is a pretty well confirmed story from the Chinese/Russian military exercise. yj-83 hit two moving targets controlled by the Russians from 210 KM. So, the lo-lo range of yj-83 is at least 210KM. It's probably even more. yj-85 is more advanced than yj-83, so I'd guess it's lo-lo range is probably near 250KM. (ie: better than the Klub missiles) Normally, the hi-lo range is at least 100KM more than lo-lo range. So, that's where you would get the 350KM.

Think about it this way, brahmos has a 300KM hi-lo range, even though it's lo-lo range is only 120KM.

[adeptitus]

I don't wanna sound evil and not trusting but please do try to provide your best source for that claim for us to see/read, i'm really curious. Are you talking about some version of c-803 having such a range, even when air launched?

Please note the sentence started with "imagine a future scenario... armed with 4x LACM's". That is, potential capability in the future with new LACM and not the C-803 today:

http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/antiship/c802.asp
"The air launched variant of the YJ-82 is designated YJ-82K (C-802K). A JH-7 fighter-bomber can carry four missiles. Some unconfirmed reports indicated that there is a 400 km-range land-attack cruise missile (LACM) variant of the YJ-82 fitted with GPS/TERCOM guidance. Although this has never been confirmed, it is certain that the YJ-82 missile does have the potential of being modified into LACM without too much difficulty."

If you feel that 400km range is unrealistic, we can certaintely bump it down to 200km, 120km, or even 50km (C-801K). The fact remains that ground targets, such as buildings, cannot grow legs and run away, and surface ships will never out-run an airplane.

While an JH-7 is not likely to get within 50km to an USN carrier, not all potential opponents involve the USN. A wing of JH-7's armed with anti-ship missiles based in Hainan can offer effective power projection and deterrance against Vietnamese or Philippine navy.

[Chairman Hu]

they actually have a navy... wow, thought they would quit and just give up since THE PRC IS HERE AHAHAHAHHA! PWNAGE!

Well the JH-7 can get close if the J-5 UAVs are launched to screw up foreign radars and the JH-7 can sneak in and attack in a "surprise raid" style

[FriedRiceNSpice]

A wing of JH-7's armed with anti-ship missiles based in Hainan can offer effective power projection and deterrance against Vietnamese or Philippine navy.

What Vietnamese or Philipine navy? You mean their brand new sampan fleet? Better watch out, cuz those sampans are deadly. I hear they even bought a package of rpg-7s to use on the sampans. Wouldn't want to get within 400km of those bad boys.

[vincelee]

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT?

ONI confirmed a C-803 launch by a JH-7 2 years ago that reached 255KMs. Interesting thing is that C-803 is a single stage weapon, where as the long range Klub is 2(?) stage. I'm not sure on the harpoon. And when has the BrahMos' range being quoted for a hi-lo profile?

Second, WHO THE FVCK SAID JH-7 IS UNDERPOWERED/PIECE OF SH1T? I respectfully suggest that you find the TWR of the Tornado and shove it up your @ss. The radar on the JH-7/JH-7A, or the Type 233H (223?) and JL-10A, are both TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR TO THE ZHEMCHUNG and the N001VE/VEP they use on the SK/MK/MK2, IF they are using the VEP on the MK2, sorry I don't have the facts in my head right now. Why? Because the JL-10A at least is a slotted array, instead of you 1960s, okay, 70s, cassegrain.

and you people think Russian munition, especially the anti ship variant, is better than the C-80x class? Let's not forget the development history of the SAMPEN-E/Krypton derivative, also known as SLOW ASS IN DEEP MUD.

[tphuang]

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT?

ONI confirmed a C-803 launch by a JH-7 2 years ago that reached 255KMs. Interesting thing is that C-803 is a single stage weapon, where as the long range Klub is 2(?) stage. I'm not sure on the harpoon. And when has the BrahMos' range being quoted for a hi-lo profile?

Second, WHO THE FVCK SAID JH-7 IS UNDERPOWERED/PIECE OF SH1T? I respectfully suggest that you find the TWR of the Tornado and shove it up your @ss. The radar on the JH-7/JH-7A, or the Type 233H (223?) and JL-10A, are both TECHNOLOGICALLY SUPERIOR TO THE ZHEMCHUNG and the N001VE/VEP they use on the SK/MK/MK2, IF they are using the VEP on the MK2, sorry I don't have the facts in my head right now. Why? Because the JL-10A at least is a slotted array, instead of you 1960s, okay, 70s, cassegrain.

and you people think Russian munition, especially the anti ship variant, is better than the C-80x class? Let's not forget the development history of the SAMPEN-E/Krypton derivative, also known as SLOW ASS IN DEEP MUD.

you need to catch up on the missile then. 255KM is the hi-lo range estimated by the Americans when it was fired from JH-7A. 210+ is the lo-lo range shown in the military exercises.

Check this on Brahmos:
http://www.protonriver.com/library/missiles/brahmos.php

As for the radar, it's believed that the radar offered by the Russians are not as good as the domestically made ones, that's why China accepted domestic ones for all the new fighers. J-10 apparently got the best domestic radar. The specs posted on sinodefense should be incorrect.

[vincelee]

"you need to catch up on the missile then. 255KM is the hi-lo range estimated by the Americans when it was fired from JH-7A. 210+ is the lo-lo range shown in the military exercises."

I know that, or do you feel like stating the obvious? You're not the only one at CDF, by the way. And it should be exercise, as Peace Mission 05 was the only time a third party has varified the lo lo range of a C-803.

by the way, ONI didn't estimate the range, they tracked it with a radar.

as for BrahMos, you're quoting something from protonriver, also know as curryriver. If that's the supplier's specifications, that's news to me.

[tphuang]

"you need to catch up on the missile then. 255KM is the hi-lo range estimated by the Americans when it was fired from JH-7A. 210+ is the lo-lo range shown in the military exercises."

I know that, or do you feel like stating the obvious? You're not the only one at CDF, by the way. And it should be exercise, as Peace Mission 05 was the only time a third party has varified the lo lo range of a C-803.

by the way, ONI didn't estimate the range, they tracked it with a radar.

as for BrahMos, you're quoting something from protonriver, also know as curryriver. If that's the supplier's specifications, that's news to me.
255KM is a possible range. But the range could be longer, that's what I'm saying. I don't understand what you are trying to get at? Are you just angry today or why are you trying to pick fight with everyone on this board?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

255KM is a possible range. But the range could be longer, that's what I'm saying. I don't understand what you are trying to get at? Are you just angry today or why are you trying to pick fight with everyone on this board?

Well, he is Vince. Thats what Vince does. What I don't understand is, why is he trying to make Chinese weapon systems sound good? Isn't he supposed to be anti-China and pro-Taiwan/Japan/US? If so, why is he saying the JH-7 is a good fighter with really good radar?

[vincelee]

you think solid propellant technology advanced that much between the 02 and the 03? I hope you're not proposing a max range of 300 km for the c-803 in hi lo

[tphuang]

you think solid propellant technology advanced that much between the 02 and the 03? I hope you're not proposing a max range of 300 km for the c-803 in hi lo
stranger thing has happened. but I would definitely think that the destroyer launched yj-83 missiles can probably travel 220Km or longer and if it is fired from JH-7A, 300KM is possible. Even if YJ-83 can't do it, YJ-85 definitely can.

[MIGleader]

yj-85 looks alot bigger than 83. i doubt a fighter could carry it. maybe an h-6.

[Gollevainen]

yj-85 looks alot bigger than 83. i doubt a fighter could carry it. maybe an h-6.

??? So you have actually seen this missile? Care to share whit rest of us where??

And shouldnt the conversation roll aroun the J-XXX not in AShMs??

[Totoro]

Good luck trying to moderate a topic like this. :D It was doomed from the start. I mean, there's virtually no information on the project, there's no way to talk about j-xx without speculating more than has been speculated on all the other threads in this forum combined.

Anyway, here's my two cents: j-xx will be on par with f22 USAAF now has. and it will be put into service around 2020.

[MIGleader]

the fact that the 52c carries yj-85 instead of 16 yj-83 must mean it's bigger. the launcher does look bigger in pics too, though i may be wrong.

[Chairman Hu]

Okie now I apologize for getting everyone from the J-XX to the JH-7, sorry mods and the leading team...

Speaking of the JL-10, don't you think China's J-XX is going to have a super-suped up version of the JL-10 since the JL-10 is said to be "superior" to the Russian N001VE/VEP or whatever

[tphuang]

I read that the radar offered to J-10 was the best one in China. JL-10 is supposedly really unreliable, that's why JH-7A has it. I'm sure they will come up with better radar later (by the time J-XX comes out).

[Chairman Hu]

So now we have the JL-10 is superior and unreliable...

yay... great...

Maybe JL-15 or something that makes the JL systems "reliable"

If the F-22 is armed with the AIM-120, then China should arm the J-XX with its own ver. similiar to the meteor

(Fine you win this one... *****)

[vincelee]

what's best, of course, is for people to stop asking stupid questions.

[swimmerXC]

what's best, of course, is for people to stop asking stupid questions.

true, the USAF are not going to use the AIM-120 forever, they probaly are developing a better AAM like the Meteor, and i think china probably won't have something like the Meteor until later, i mean look at the SD-10...... they probably won't start research on something like the Meteor until ALL PLAAF fighters have atleast some BVR

[Chairman Hu]

ouch that hurt...

I wish China sold or turned all J-5,6,7,8 into UAVS and built on from the J-10, 11, Su-27SK, and the Su-30MKK/2.

That can solve at least the BVR problem... and get everything organized... Too bad now we live in a world when it's quality over quantity, not like now it was back then...

[MIGleader]

they j-7 is still useful in the air defence and intercept role. the j-8 still has some development potential and should not be under estimated.

[Chairman Hu]

I guess, since the J-8 is a MiG-21 redesigned with twin engine... But it still kind of unreliable... Do something about the airframe... Like I said, Try to turn it into a MiG-31 style capabilities or at least half of it and China is going to be so much better off

[Vanguard1688]

All we really need to change on the J-8 is its engines and radar, the airframe is very clean and perfect for interceptors.

[MIGleader]

why not add a double delta or wing root extentions? that would make it more manuverable. it can then be dual use as intercepter and fighter.

[Chairman Hu]

Not a bad idea, I was just thinking of bigger and better delta wings with large air-intake on the sides

BACK TO TOPIC: what kind of wings do you guys think that the J-XX will have??? Delta, Swept, FSW, Diamond, etc...

[MIGleader]

it had diamond on some concept drawings. maybe the chinese will put in root extetions to make it more manuverable.

[swimmerXC]

will probably have canards too, don't you think?

[Chairman Hu]

of course, canards are useful

I say maybe Diamond wings or FSW

[MIGleader]

fsw...maybe a little to radical. the plane looks bad too. why develop your own fsw when you can buy the su-47?

[adeptitus]

How about a mix of manned (control) and unammed (UAV) aircraft?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread108082/pg5

Armed UAV's cost a lot of develop, but will save you $ in the long run. You don't have to worry about the human pilot - think about how long and expensive it costs to train a pilot, then how many years of service you get out of him/her before he/she retires to work for a domestic airline.

Without pilots, an attack UAV don't have to worry about blackouts, and can even be programmed to crash into a target when needed. Such UAV's can be mass produced and depolyed at the push of a button.

[MIGleader]

but can an armed uav out perform more modern combat aircraft? it's just not the same when a third world nation uses a mig to fight a uav. the mig would know what was actully happening, getting a better sense of battle.

[ReDgUaRd008]

i hope its a tri-plane config because tri-planes like SU-35, SU-37 and SU-47 give out greater movements then the canards and delta wing config. it also looks cool :cool:

http://img129.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jxx9er.jpg

[MIGleader]

its not like you cant have both.

that pic looks like a super modified stealty j-10.

[Chairman Hu]

In my opinion, that would be a perfect frame for the J-XX

[sumdud]

Some of those designs were good. I'd think it will have active canards, F-22 wing with a cut(Like a double delta)

Maybe there will be a pod under each wing to stealthily house more weapons.

[Chairman Hu]

WOW!!! same here YAY!

okie so FSW is still risky... okie the wings are good, and canards are in place, what about fusealge and airintake...?

[stonewind]

Crap my com cant read chinese, but is made in china :D

As for the UAV's. what if it was remote piloted instead? it can do rolls, climb faster and move better without the pilot having to black out.

J-XX seems like a rip-off of F-22. Its not reverse engineered so its a rip-off. But if thats the new standard for fighter jets I guess you cant argue with what results you get.

Diamond wings Perhaps. Swept wings are not intended for Air to air combat... maybe back in the day.

[MIGleader]

a uav still has a pilot, just not in the plane. even if the plane ids going 20 gs, can the pilot control it?

[IDonT]

a uav still has a pilot, just not in the plane. even if the plane ids going 20 gs, can the pilot control it?


The problem arises for UAV in the susceptability of its controls to be jammed. Since its flight are remotely controlled, this link can be jammed and the UAV itself be "highjack" and used against its own forces.

Those are things to ponder. IMO, nothing beats a piloted aircraft.

[Chairman Hu]

True, it REALLY wouldn't be funny if a group of 48 attack UAVs were hacked and turned against their own country... Humans and smarter than computers, because we can think outside of the box

[MIGleader]

i doubt pilots would fight nearly as well in uavs because they know their lifes not at stake, as a real pilot would know. it would also get them the impression war is not real, and they wouldn't hesitate in doing stupid things.

[Chairman Hu]

Very true...

But, seriously im wanna know what are all of you's opinion on the J-XX's airframe

[tphuang]

http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs2/11018521/20050924/12686139.html
some pictures of possible models.

[Chairman Hu]

...........................

Trapezoid belly intake, with the back part a copy of the MiG-MFI 1.44...

NOT impressive...

[tphuang]

claimed to be J-XX
http://club.news.sohu.com/read-war_pics-304533-0-0.html

[BrotherofSnake]

lol, that is a Raptor.

[IDonT]

claimed to be J-XX
http://club.news.sohu.com/read-war_pics-304533-0-0.html
looks like the f-22

[swimmerXC]

lol, that is a Raptor.

well what do you want it to look like? F-22 has set the standard for stealth fighters

[BrotherofSnake]

I didn't say it looked like a Raptor. I said it is a Raptor. :)

[PiSigma]

agree with brotherofsnake right there. that is a F-22. all the little and major designs are exactly like it. i think it's probably a chinese R&D facility that build the outer shell of the F-22 to study it's aerodynamics and stealth features.

[MIGleader]

well, i think typhuangs pic looked lice the boeing jsf with flanker style wing design. i think the chinese should take an f-22 airframe, then mix it with the aero dynamic feature of a flanker for a smooth desighn.

how did they copy the outside of an f-22? jhust by looking at it, or did they get some specifications?

[Chairman Hu]

I say from looking at it

In fact, the Japanese were able to built a copy of the German jet engine from a few photos, and not blueprints either

I agree, with our primitive stealth tech, every stealth fighters will look something like the Raptor

[MIGleader]

well, the japanese got a few design specs, and an engine.

[Chairman Hu]

So... China might have some data besides on... *STARE AT THE AIRFRAME*

SAC and CAC arent full of idiots... I wish CAC will play more of a role in the project

This way the work will speed up, enough R&D already!

dont you guys think the same?

[sino52C]

The main problem of J-XX: actually building the thing so it becomes stealthy. Looking like the F-22 will not make it stealthy.

[Gollevainen]

dont you guys think the same?

defianetly not, I belive that any man ever worked in any aircarft desing company isen't an idiot...

[Chairman Hu]

True... very true...

Sino you are right too... making it look like it doesnt mean it will be...

the J-XX must borrow from the MFI 1.44 and the Raptor, America built the Nighthawk with tech borrowed from the Eagle and the Falcon... look how fast it was developed for a pioneer stealth plane

[MIGleader]

1984-2005 thats how long the development and deployment of the raptor took. more than 20 years!!!!!

borrowing is the best method for fast development.

[Chairman Hu]

uuhhh no it is 1983, courtesy of www.globalsecurity.org

so it is 22 years, but the difference is, it had a prototype by 1991, giving it 8 years for a airframe, if the J-XX is going to enter service in 2015 and fly by 2013, I give China credit for getting the J-XX faster into service but not airframe testable time.

The J-XX... should borrow some tech from the Su-30MKK/2 and the J-10, the J-XX COULD be a low-mounted winged belly intake fighter plane like the MFI and EF-2000, but one of the reason that the Raptor had a frame by 91' was because they were in competition with Boeing, CAC should be allowed to develop their own version, at least China can choose between 2 version to see which is better... With incentive to a project, people tend to do much better, at least there is something else to look forwards to instead of just time and dates

[swimmerXC]

the F-117 didn't borrow it's design from the F-15 and F-16! it benefited from a design prototype fighter called "Hopeless Diamond" and "Have Blue"

[BrotherofSnake]

The F-117 borrowed cockpit equipment from the F-16.

[swimmerXC]

the F-16 probably set the standard at the time, i wouldn't be surprised if J-10 borrowed tech from flankers....

[tphuang]

CAC - doing the twin-engined naval version of J-10 based on MFI
SAC - J-xx

[MIGleader]

the F-16 probably set the standard at the time, i wouldn't be surprised if J-10 borrowed tech from flankers....

it borrowed the hms and al-31, what else can u expect?

[Chairman Hu]

borrow more tech of course

I cant believe that CAC is just working on the naval ver of the J-10, what a rip off, I wish China can clear her head and realize that 2 groups at one project is better than onE!

[sumdud]

I don't like the idea of using the J-10 to compete. Fighters with intakes below are a lot less stealthier than other types of fighter. The radio waves will just enter, bounce back out, get reflected by the nose and goes back to the ground.

The J-10 isn't going to use the AL-31 forever, they got a new engine coming.

As for designing stealthy fighters, it's easier to give the stealth than to give the fighter. The F-22 was designed with straight sides, which should not be a hard thing compared to giving a manuverable fighter...........

[MIGleader]

maybe china will surprise us with a new design. those pics of i.44 and f-22 rip offs get boring.well, hope fully china can also fit dsi intakes on the j-10 to make it a bit more stelthy.

since th i.44 and f-22 were bith great designs, i dont see whats wrong with taking parts from them. china is developing the j-xx a part at a time. look at the sd-10, al-41, airfram studies...

[Chairman Hu]

After 2 weeks, I made a new frame...

Its back is based on the YF-23 Black Widow 2 and the wings Delta style based on the MFI 1.44. The air-intake is going to be based on the YF-23 again and with carnads and 3-D TVCs.

Sumdud, you are completely right, even the Russians claim that their 1.44 isnt stealthy to a level compared to the Raptor, and the Russians are focusing on plasma stealth instead.

The intake might be a problem, in fact, the 1.44 style is impossible for a true stealth, this is why I chose the YF-23, from reports of testes, it is more flexible and better at a certain speed, the difference was the the Black Widow 2 and the Raptor were using 2 COMPLETELY different engines.

MiGLeader, the 1.44 and the Raptor ARE perfect for China to fiddle around with, the J-XX project should be handled the same way as China's 3rd generation tanks or how America did the ATF project, let CAC and SAC apporach different ways and you never know, one can be the conductor of the project and the other can be the sub-contractor of parts like... radar and hardpoints in the plane, HUD, MFD, blah, blah, blah

Even if China comes out with something less stealthy by frame, China always can joint develop plasma tech with Russia and that can give China an edge, I say instead of just frames and engines and missiles, China should look for oppotunities for J-XX enhancement and whatever possible to increase the plane for a low cost.

[MIGleader]

chiona should order some mig-1.44;s for service, but their primary roll is testing. actully, the russians claim the mig 1.44 is stealthier than the f-22(exagerate, it has to at most be equal), has better performance(possibly exagerated), and has better manuverability(very true). the mig-1.44 uses special polymers in its construction that absorb radar, and is coated in ram. it also makes good use of curve stealth shaping ans heat reduction on the 3-d al-41s. it also has internal weapons bays and a failry advanced radar. seems great for taking on a rapter. its the su-47 berkut thats actually not so stealthy, althoug it does have superb manuverability.

[tphuang]

I don't like the idea of using the J-10 to compete. Fighters with intakes below are a lot less stealthier than other types of fighter. The radio waves will just enter, bounce back out, get reflected by the nose and goes back to the ground.

The J-10 isn't going to use the AL-31 forever, they got a new engine coming.

As for designing stealthy fighters, it's easier to give the stealth than to give the fighter. The F-22 was designed with straight sides, which should not be a hard thing compared to giving a manuverable fighter...........
there is a slight redesign using DSI that will come out soon I guess and it will also use WS-10A engine. Either way, I think J-10 should be in the ballpark of F-16C/D. It wasn't designed for stealth in the first place.

As for Mig 1.44, J-10C is definitely going to take a lot of concept from that plane. http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2004/04fisher_report/7airforcesystems.htm

[Chairman Hu]

Same here MiGLeader, the 1.44 is a testbed, like the X planes of America

So why not, China SHOULD, itz just a testbed, itz suppose to help you for preperation of a new plane
:china:

[sumdud]

curve stealth shaping?

Are you sure the J-10 DSI intake is not just a rumor? I don't remember seeing any article. But yes, the J-10 most likely in the future(Not mature, not proven) is with the F-16C/Ds.

Maybe I should put out my design:
Raptor intakes, straight leading edge, 2 VTOL nozzles (Swiveling exhaust), flat back, Flanker tail, Flanker fin, Fulcrum finlets, wingpods (For weapon storage)

[Chairman Hu]

errr how bout a pic, that would help.

no dude, not for the stealth part! MFI 1.44 proves powerful and it can be an extra option, sure even I wont borrow the intake style, but... at least I can use the rest of it... itz best to keep an open mind on this

The J-XX WILL be the superior fighter of the PLAAF, a few more power planes to back up, with many efficient attack planes, this is a perfect combo to show the world that the PRC military ratings shouldnt be underestimated

[MIGleader]

curve stealth shaping?

Are you sure the J-10 DSI intake is not just a rumor? I don't remember seeing any article. But yes, the J-10 most likely in the future(Not mature, not proven) is with the F-16C/Ds.

Maybe I should put out my design:
Raptor intakes, straight leading edge, 2 VTOL nozzles (Swiveling exhaust), flat back, Flanker tail, Flanker fin, Fulcrum finlets, wingpods (For weapon storage)

are u repling to me?
http://www.strange-mecha.com/aircraft/Ente/mig1-44.jpg
the mig 1.44
its my icon aswell.

[sumdud]

errr how bout a pic, that would help.
Remember that photo I sent to you over AIM?
How'd you upload photos again?
are u repling to me?Yes. I have yet to see a report.

[MIGleader]

Remember that photo I sent to you over AIM?
How'd you upload photos again?
Yes. I have yet to see a report.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/research_literature/aviation_articles/Janes/topics/plasma_stealth/MiG%201.42%20(1.44)%20MFI.pdf

[sumdud]

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/research_literature/aviation_articles/Janes/topics/plasma_stealth/MiG%201.42%20(1.44)%20MFI.pdf
You were addressing curve stealth shaping, right?
I thought you meant curving the body when you said that, not plasma stealth.

I was talking about the J-10 DSI intake actually.

[tphuang]

You were addressing curve stealth shaping, right?
I thought you meant curving the body when you said that, not plasma stealth.

I was talking about the J-10 DSI intake actually.
it doesn't have DSI intake yet, but it will have it.

[sumdud]

I am not very convinced. Do you have an article?

[tphuang]

published in the May issue of aviation monthly:
http://photocdn.sohu.com/20050516/Img225577455.jpg
　　《航空世界》杂志5月号刊登了一篇《中航一集团共产党员型号共建事迹报告会在京举行》的文章。文章除配 了一张吴邦国委员长视察的照片外，还配了如上一张图！从图中我们可以清晰地看到此型飞机的进气 口侧面！
转自搜狐

from http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs/11018441/20050614/12399610.html
http://military.china.com/zh_cn/bbs/11018441/20050614/images/12399610_247830.jpg
probably the above is a fake

more picture
http://www.freespaces.com/tphuang/post-10-1116584918.jpg

[drunkhomer]

wut is it??...cant read chinese

[SABRE]

http://www.freespaces.com/tphuang/post-10-1116584918.jpg

why does the above pic seems like the photo work of the below pic?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/61/J-10_06.jpg

The 1st pic by Tphuang is real while the next two are fake.

[MIGleader]

i hope the chinese do put dsi some day on the j-10. it would certainly look much better

[SABRE]

Well they did manage to put DSI on FC-1/JF-17, I guess it can be done with J-10 but the 2 aircrafts have different inlets. I think aircrafts with two wind-inlets side by side under the wings are easy to be fitted with DSIs.
The single inlet like J-10's might get less wind inside if there is a DSI. This might cause engine heat up & may put the fighter to a risk.

[tphuang]

The first one I posted is from the magazine for sure. The last 2 are speculations on what it might look like. J-10's next model will get DSI for sure. It will probably have WS-10A and an upgraded 1473 too.

anyhow, I got a possible picture of J-XX:
http://www.freespaces.com/tphuang/0510211037471_8158.jpg

[Deino]

Sorry no !!!

That's the Yakovlev contender for the MFI programme ... which was later won by Mikoyan with its 1.42 design and tested in the 1.44-testbed ... the other condender was Sukhoi's S-37 !!

Cheers, Deino

[MIGleader]

Sorry no !!!

That's the Yakovlev contender for the MFI programme ... which was later won by Mikoyan with its 1.42 design and tested in the 1.44-testbed ... the other condender was Sukhoi's S-37 !!

Cheers, Deino

its actually the su-47.
ykevlov got nocked out before the competition even began.

[walter]

its actually the su-47.
ykevlov got nocked out before the competition even began.

doesn't look like the su-47 to me. we all know the black FSW triplane configuration of the Su-47--this pic doesn't have FSW or triplane config.

[MIGleader]

doesn't look like the su-47 to me. we all know the black FSW triplane configuration of the Su-47--this pic doesn't have FSW or triplane config.

no, i meant the planre sukoi sent to compete was not the s-37, but su-47

[sumdud]

The T-50 is this:
http://www.suchoj.com/galerie/index.htm?http://www.suchoj.com/ab1953/T-50/galerie.shtml
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread130829/pg1
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread130829/pg2
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread130829/pg3

[MIGleader]

so of those pics are good, evelution from the su-47. othersclearly are made by people who think all stealth planes have to look like the f-22.

[Chairman Hu]

Cheap carbon copies....

The day that China and Russia copies the Raptor, the day that hell freezes over

If both China and Russia did, they'd be flying right now, copying is easier than building a new one, all you need to do is built it in the same concept as the Raptor, and work out all the others that doesnt make sense

[tphuang]

latest from Chinese sites http://military.china.com/zh_cn/jzwq/01/11028429/20051107/12824215.html
Note: 4th generation is 5th generation in China

中国国产第四代战机探密

高月

在2004 年珠海航展上，国产兵器有不少亮点，但国产最新型歼-10战机的缺席，却让不少期待中的军迷和航空爱好者们再次大大地失望了一回。歼-10的缺席其实是预料之中的事，因为习惯上我国只在公开场合展示一些外贸型军品，对我军自己装备的那些兵器 则一向是讳莫如深。关于歼-10，国内外不少传媒早已经纷纷报道过。我们暂且不去讨论这些传闻的真伪，但歼-10是一种当代先进的战斗机已是不争的事实，歼－10的推出必将大大提高我空军的作战实力。然而，《汉和情 报》杂志特约记者、军事评论员平柯夫又爆猛料，称从这次航展上播放的资料录相及相关人员的谈话中已然发现了 中国第四代战斗机的踪影。那么中国第四代战斗机究竟是什么样呢？本文依据散落的相关资料进行了 探寻。
作为国防力量的重要组成部分和现代战争的关键打击力量，空军在国防战略中占有极其重要的地位。空中战役及空 中打击甚至可以完全决定战争的胜负。历史证明，空中战役是决定性战役；空中优势是重要的战略制高点之一；没 有制空权就没有战争的主动权。现代战争也表明，大气层已成为高技术战争的主战场之一，发展空中力量、争夺空 中优势已成为各国国防建设和掌握现代军事优势的主要方向。所以，中国在发展壮大的道路上，大力发展空中力量 、强化空军的作战能力已成为必然趋势和当务之急。

中国空军是一支年青的队伍。中国的航空工业基础薄弱，资金有限，技术储备力量不足，这些都是制约中国空军装 备发展的重要因素。值得庆幸的是，自从上世纪90年代以来，中国的航空工业取得了长足发展，特别是进入21 世纪以后，中国的航空工业已摆脱了仿制生产前苏制战斗机的老路子，逐步具备了自主开发、研制现代化战机的能 力，呈现出蓄势待发的势头。可以相信，一旦某些关键技术获得突破，中国空军的战机将会立即跨入世界先进水平 的行列。

纵观中国航空工业的发展，基本上走的是小步快跑，边引进先进技术、边自行研制进行技术储备的路子。其中取得 了不少成果，也遇到了很多曲折。国产FC-1“枭龙”和歼-10 “猛龙”战斗机就是中国航空工业的骄傲。这两种新型战斗机已达到了世界第三代战斗机的先进水平， 而歼-10“猛龙”甚至具备了世界三代半战斗机的先进水平，性能十分优良。但是，世界战斗机已开始向第四代战斗机 的水平发展，对中国航空工业来说，要整体达到世界先进水平，仍有一段艰难的道路要走，可谓任重 而道远！
什么是第三代第四代战斗机

相对于陆军和海军来说，空军还是一个比较年青的军种，但却是发展迅猛的一个军种。人类自发明飞机以来才不过 一百余年，而飞机已成为现代战争、尤其是高技术战争中一支不可替代的战略力量。军用飞机已成为现代战争中应 用最广、使用频率最高的主战兵器。

按世界通用的标准，战斗机的使用和发展划分为三代：喷气机代替螺旋桨飞机的时代为第一代；喷气机由亚音速到 超音速的时代为第二代；装备先进的火控系统和良好的气动性能、具备对地攻击能力的时代为第三代。而具有超音 速巡航能力（不开加力的情况下也能保持持续超音速飞行）、超机动能力（在迎角60－70度的状态下仍能保持 持续控制）、隐身能力（能躲避对方雷达追踪且具有1平方米以下的雷达反射面积）和超视距导弹攻击能力的战斗 机为第四代战斗机。

目前，各国空军的主力战机大多是二代半或三代战斗机，只有为数不多的军事强国装备有三代和三代半战斗机，并 且正向四代战机发展。在未来的几十年里，世界先进空军国家主要装备的仍将是三代和三代半战斗机。第四代战机 要完全取代第三代战机，仍需要在技术和成本上付出巨大的努力。所以，在审视第四代战斗机的时候，对第三代战 机的特点有一定的了解也许是非常有益的。

第三代战斗机采用的主要技术有：

1．采用以计算机为核心的多余度电传操纵系统，对平尾、襟副翼、方向舵、前缘机动襟翼等活动翼面实施主动控 制，因而使飞机的飞行品质得到大幅度的提升 ，机动性能增强。

2．翼根前部采用边条翼，充分利用气动旋涡（翼根前部的窄长边条可在主翼上表面形成有利的气动干扰），显著 增大飞机的失速迎角，为飞机提供额外的涡升力，从而使空战机动能力和起降性能得到了改善。

3．采用机动前缘襟翼（这种襟翼可随迎角和数的变化而自动偏转），从而改变机翼的弯度，使之适应不同的飞行 状态，保证飞机在各种情况下均可获得良好的气动特征。

4．采用翼身融合体设计（即机翼和机身之间实现圆滑过渡，等于对机翼和翼根进行了整流），显著减小了浸湿面 积，从而达到降低干扰阻力和磨擦阻力、提高机身升力的目的。另外采用翼身融合设计后，机翼根部加厚，增强了 结构受力，可减轻重量，增加了机体的容积。

5．机身许多部位采用碳纤维和玻璃纤维等复合材料，具有重量轻、强度大、耐高温、抗疲劳的优点；还可间接改 善飞行性能，降低雷达波反射。

6．座舱采用气泡式设计，可为飞行员提供良好的视野，十分有利于飞行员在视距范围内尽快地探索、 发现目标。

7．采用后倾式座椅，在飞机作大载荷高机动飞行时能够自动向后倾斜30度，从而使驾驶员的抗过载能力提高0 .6g－1.0g。

8．采用力敏感短程侧置式驾驶手杆。常规操纵手杆设在飞行员两腿之间，而这种驾驶手杆则装在飞行员座椅的扶 手上，仅靠手腕的力量就能精确地控制飞行状态，尤其是在大过载（8－9g）状态驾驶员随座椅后仰时，仍能方 便地操纵飞机。

9.配用小涵道比涡扇发动机。这型发动机具有推重比大、耗油率低、可靠性高、噪音低等特点，十分有利于提高 飞机的机动性能并增大作战半径。

10.配备性能先进的雷达和综合显示系统，采用数据总线相联技术，从而使飞机的探测距离更远，火控系统更完 善，自动化程度更高，既减轻了飞行员的负担，也提高了作战效能。

11.采用腹部进气道。腹部进气具有结构简单、重量轻、大迎角状态下进气效率高的优点。
与第三代战机相比，第四代战斗机采用了更多的先进技术，其中主要有：

1.大量使用强度大、重量轻的铝锂合金、钛合金和硬质碳纤维和玻璃纤维复合材料。各型复合材料的使用量将占 整机材料的20％－40％。

2.采用新型吸波材料、红外抑制技术、等离子体隐形技术以及先进的气动外型设计，使飞机的隐身能力达到极致 。

3.采用推重比达8－10的新型带推力矢量喷口的涡扇发动机，使飞机能够持续超音速巡航飞行。

4.装备有源或无源相控阵雷达和红外／激光／微光综合探测系统，使飞机探测距离更远，并可对付多批次多方位 的目标。

5.采用全权多余度数字式电传操纵系统和先进的故障诊断和警告系统，使飞机的空中机动能力和起降性能更好， 安全性更高。

6.采用“玻璃座舱”设计，即用广角全息平视显示器、两至三个阴极射线管或液晶下视显示器、以及背投式液晶 显示器来取代大部分圆盘式仪表以及头盔瞄准显示器，建立了良好的人机界面，从而为飞行员提供更多的信息和更 方便的作战能力。

7.装备高精度综合导航系统、高度自动化的综合防御电子对抗系统、敌我识别装置以及语言控制系统。

8.采用半埋式挂架或全埋式武器舱。

由于采用了以上先进技术，第四代战斗机获得了卓尔不群的先进性能。当然，过多地采用高端技术也使飞机的造价 陡增，性价比下降；而且过分强调高新技术，就象是 “超前消费”一样，并非完全适用于当前的作战需要。如美 F-22的载弹量只有1.5吨，小于第三代的米格-29（3吨）、F-16（5吨）。所以，在确定第四代战斗机的设计指标时，俄罗斯和欧洲采取了作战能力和技术性能均衡的原则。 这一点对我们了解中国第四代战斗机很有帮助。
中国第四代战斗机的发展

关于国产第四代战斗机的发展早有传闻，2004年珠海航展之后，国产第四代战机的各种传说更是纷纷见诸报端 。自FC-1“枭龙”和歼-10“猛龙”研制成功之后，中国开始第四代战斗机的研制也是顺理成章的事。笔者认为，国产第四代战斗机的研 制发展不太可能是大众传说中想象的那样，是某种全新的革命性设计；相反，中国依然会采用小步快跑的方式，在 已研制成功的FC-1和歼-10的技术上，利用一些逐渐成熟的技术，采用改进、改型的方法，使之演变成具有世界第四代水平的国产战斗机 。在更远的未来，则将在这一切技术储备的基础上，依靠改进、改型所积累的技术经验，研发一代全新设计的革命 性战斗机。这是因为：
1.中国的航空工业基础相对薄弱，技术储备、制造工艺和设计经验底子差，尤其是航空发动机新型材料的加工制 造工艺以及航空电子设备距世界先进水平尚有很大差距。这是公认的中国航空工业发展的瓶颈。

2. 第四代战斗机将集多种先进技术于一身，要把这些技术整合到一架飞机上，使之相互兼容，并符合战斗机的气动性 能要求和未来作战的需要，需有一定的研制和试验周期，也需要为之投入大量的资金和科研力量。当前，世界上很 多国家（包括那些技术发达的国家），都把以最新开发的先进技术应用于现役成熟机型的升级改造上作为发展思路 ，并在此基础上实现由量变到质变的飞跃，使技术储备达到一定积累时才发展出新一代的作战平台。这样做技术风 险小，循序渐进，稳妥可靠，特别适合经济、技术欠发达或财力有限的国家。中国的歼-7、歼-8型飞机的渐进式发展就是很成功的例子。

3.世界上第四代战斗机（如美国的F- 22“猛禽”隐形战斗机和JSF联合攻击战斗机）已然定型，但是，第三代战斗机如F-15“鹰”、F-18“大黄蜂”、俄罗斯的苏-27和米格-29、法国的“幻影”-2000、欧洲的“狂风”等通过换装新型发动机、雷达，以及改进进气道设计以后，仍然能满足近一个时期内空 战的需要而延长服役时间。技术密集、造价奇昂的第四代战斗机其实并不为军方看好，很多先进国家也只是打算少 量装备，真正要完全替代第三代战斗机尚需时日。

中国新研制的 FC-1“枭龙”和歼-10“猛龙”仍具有一定的发展潜力。如FC-1的肋部进气布局设计独特而先进，如果换装大推重比发动机，进气口改为矩形而扩大进气量，进气道改为S型以 遮蔽涡扇桨叶对雷达的反射，以及换装新型大功率多功能雷达火控系统，采用双发、双垂尾改进，其性能必将得到 很大的提高。再如，歼- 10“猛龙”本身就已具备相当的隐形能力，换装新型大推重比的推力矢量喷管发动机及新型相控阵雷达的火控系 统以后，很容易具备准四代战斗机的水平。中国第四代战斗机的设计可能不会是全面飞跃的思路，而可能根据实际 需要，达到或超过某些指标而形成自己的特色即可。须知美国的F－22性能确实超前，但那是一种浪费，其很多 性能在实际空战中并不是不可或缺的。
中国战斗机要完成向第四代的跨越，必须突破以下几项关键技术。

关键技术之一：大推重比航空发动机

涡轮风扇发动机技术是现代高性能军机必不可少的关键技术。与涡喷发动机相比，涡扇发动机热效率高，油耗低， 因而能够获得较大的推重比和较远的航程。这些指标是涡喷发动机无论如何都难以达到的。其实涡喷发动机和涡扇 发动机的核心机是基本相同的，所不同的是涡扇发动机是在涡喷发动机的基础上增加了几级涡轮，这些涡轮带动一 排或几排风扇，风扇后的气流一部分进入压气机（内涵道），燃烧后从喷口喷出，另一部分则不经过燃烧，而通过 外涵道直接排到空气中。所以，涡扇发动机的推力是风扇抗力和喷口推力的总和。

中国目前已完全能够独立研制开发新型涡轮喷气式发动机。“昆仑”涡喷发动机就是我国自主开发的中等推力发动 机，其技术相当先进、性能可靠，而且性能和寿命周期等方面仍有很大的发展潜力。因此，在“昆仑”发动机的基 础上发展出一型先进的国产涡扇发动机只是时间的问题。

据说国产的FBC-1“飞豹”上装备的发动机是国产的“WS-9”（“涡扇”-9，也称“秦岭”），这是英国斯贝MK202涡扇发动机的国产改进型。涡扇-9的生产使中国在航空发动机制造方面获得了一定的经验，为以后的发展奠定了一定的基础。

国产航空发动机最先进的是涡扇-10／10A型发动机。这是一种采用三级风扇，九级整流，单级高效高功率高低压涡轮的大推力、大推重比、小 涵道比的先进发动机。其结构完整性设计、发动机制造工艺都具有先进的世界水平。其中采用镍基单晶高温合金先 进材料的涡轮叶片，以及对流、前缘撞击加气膜三合一的多孔回流复合冷却技术使涡轮叶片的冷却效果提高了两倍 ，是一项重大的技术突破。涡扇-10A则是一型带推力矢量喷管的发动机，推重比已达8以上。有人评论说，涡扇- 10的性能要比俄罗斯的AL-31F还略高一筹。笔者认为，在这些发动机的技术基础上，国产推重比达到10的带推力矢量喷管的新型发动机 会很快装备到国产最新型战斗机上。
关键技术之二：相控阵雷达系统

提起美国的第四代战斗机F-22“猛禽”，人们首先想到的肯定是它那独特的隐身外形和持续超音速飞行的巡航能力。但是，人们不应忽视了 它的有源相控阵雷达系统，正是它赋予了战机多功能的、对付多批次目标超视距能力。笔者要说，这 才是F-22“猛禽”身上最具实战价值的东西。

那么，相控阵雷达系统为什么具有这么神奇的功能呢？我们还得从头说起。

我们知道，传统雷达的工作原理是首先向空中发射一束电磁波束，用机械的方式转动雷达天线，以使波束扫过一定 的区域（天空、地面或海面）。当电磁波束与目标相同时就会反射一定的回波，利用计算机对回波进行解算，就能 对目标定位和测距了。相控阵雷达与传统雷达不同的是天线。它是依靠在一块平面天线上有规则地排列许多个辐射 单元（称为阵元），利用电磁波的相干原理，通过计算机控制输往天线各辐射单元电流相位的变化来改变波束的方 向，对一定区域进行扫描，接收单元则将接收到的辐射回波输入主机，经过解算对目标的方位、距离进行探测跟踪 和定位。因此，相控阵雷达也称为电子扫描雷达。

相控阵雷达有两种，一种是有源相控阵雷达，一种是无源相控阵雷达。两者的区别在于：有源相控阵雷达的天线是 一种称为T/R模组的接收与发射装置，每一块T/R模组都能产生电磁波；而无源相控阵雷达则是使用统一的发射机和接收机，外加具有相位控制能力的相控阵天线 而成，天线本身不能产生雷达波。有源与无源相控阵雷达在功能上无太大的区别，不过有源相控阵的收发装置只有 T/R模组，所以结构重量轻，故障率低，即使几个相邻阵元出现故障和损坏，也不会对整个系统的性能造成影响。而 无源相控阵雷达与传统雷达只有天线及处理系统的差别，结构重量、生存率等均不能与有源相控阵雷达相比。因此 ，有源相控阵雷达是未来战斗机机载雷达的发展方向。
与传统雷达相比，相控阵雷达在性能上有重大突破，主要表现在以下几个方面：

1.具有对付多目标的能力。相控阵雷达利用电子扫描的灵活性、快速性和多波束、可按时分割原理，能实现边搜 索边跟踪工作方式，可与电子计算机相配合，能同时搜索探测和跟踪不同方向和不同高度的多批目标，并能同时制 导多枚导弹对多个目标进行攻击。

2.具有多功能性。相控阵雷达能同时形成多个独立控制的波束，分别用于执行搜索、探测、识别、跟踪、照射和 制导导弹等多种功能。因此一个雷达便具有多个专用雷达的功能。

3. 反应时间短、数据更新率高。由于相控阵雷达可同时针对不同方向进行扫描，加之扫描方式为电子控制而非机械转 动，因此反应时间短，资料更新率大大提高。机械扫描雷达因受限于机械转动频率，资料更新周期为秒或10秒级 ，而电子扫描雷达则为毫秒或微秒级，因而更适于对付高机动目标。

4.抗干扰能力强。相控阵可以利用分布在天线孔径上的多个单元综合成非常高的功率，并能合理地管理能量和控 制主瓣增益，可根据不同方向上的需要分配不同的发射能量，易于实现自适应旁瓣抑制和自适应抗各种干扰，有利 于发现远距目标和雷达小反射面目标，还可提高抗反辐射导弹的能力。

5.可靠性高。相控阵雷达阵列较多且并联使用，即使有少量组件失效仍能正常工作。此外，随着固态器件的发展 ，相控阵雷达的固态器件越来越多（甚至产生出全固状相控阵雷达），所以平均故障间隔时间增大，即使有10％ 的阵元损坏也不会对系统的性能造成太大的影响。

6.具有隐形功能。传统机械雷达的转动结构会造成相当大的回波，而使用电子扫描的相控阵雷达能使这种影响降 到最小。同时，相控阵雷达工作时发射的窄波束会减少被发现的机会，并使对方的电子干扰系统难以 发挥作用。
中国研制相控阵雷达已有多年，在地对空导弹系统、炮兵侦测系统和新型驱逐舰上已有实际应用。但是机载相控阵 雷达必须解决好三个难题：一是T／R模组的体积。一般是28个T/R单元使用一组共用元件，一个模组中共用单元的数量越多越好，但共用组件故障时对雷达性能的影响也就较显著 。所以，两者必须平衡。二是大功率低压电源。相控阵雷达的天线阵元要求的电压不高，但所需电流却很大。作为 机载相控阵雷达系统中的电源，必须可靠性高，体积小，重量轻。三是冷却。相控阵雷达的天线阵面上密布着数百 上千个 T／R模组，热功率相当高，如何对其冷却是保证雷达可靠、正常工作的条件。

有源相控阵雷达技术难点较多，而无源相控阵雷达相对来说技术难度较小，装备比较容易，作为有源相控阵雷达的 替代品或机载雷达的低端产品，不失为一种首选方案。
关键技术之三：新型材料与制造工艺

第四代战斗机普遍使用高性能复合材料等新型材料，以降低自身重量，增大发动机的推重比。但是使用新型材料势 必增加制造成本，同时增加部件的加工难度。新型材料一般是指添加了石墨的碳纤维复合材料和添加了钛、镁或锂 的铝合金材料。新型材料必须质量轻，坚固耐用，还要注意尽量降低成本。
通过以上分析，相信读者应该对国产第四代战斗机目前的发展情况有了一定的了解。笔者相信，随着时间的推移和 各项新技术的成熟，中国新一代战斗机一定会在不久后冲上蓝天。到那时，中国空军将逐步淘汰歼-7、歼-8系列战斗机，而由换装了国产发动机和航电设备的苏-27／30、歼-10“猛龙”、“枭龙Ⅱ”／FC-1Ⅱ和“猛龙Ⅱ”／歼-10Ⅱ组成新的阵容，从而成为具有世界先进水平的现代化空军

[vincelee]

Cheap carbon copies....

The day that China and Russia copies the Raptor, the day that hell freezes over

If