Is it stolen, hacked or borrowed?? Which one or all the above. I don't understand.
Is it only outside or also inside or both?
J31 program is military version of Huawei, most griping in US minds.
- Thread starter tidalwave
- Start date
- Status
Is it stolen, hacked or borrowed?? Which one or all the above. I don't understand.
Is it only outside or also inside or both?
All of the above my friend, read your own article!
depends on who you ask, its about perspective, I used to say "borrowed" to be polite, but now that its out in the open? "Stolen/Hacked" seems to be the US perspective....
but do read your article, its not too bad?
Last edited:
So that mean inside of F35 also compromised.
Theres no point Chinese only imitate outside shape and not take advantage of inside/interior information as well.
Can we assume the materials of the plane got compromised as well?
Wo, that's pretty radical....
Last edited:
Yes Sir, but I'll let you in on a little secret, having the tech specs/drawings only gets you about a third of way to the finish line. The F-35 is a very, very complex aircraft, the shaping is fairly easy to replicate, as its essentially a smaller F-22, with some refinements.
Internally starting with the F-135 for example, there's no way the Russians or the Chinese can replicate that, if they could they would have already done it? wouldn't they?
that's just for starters, but the FC-31 flies on RD-33/RD-93 Russian engines, that's the main reason the FC-31 is a twin, there's no way it would perform as well as it does on a single Russian or Chinese engine.
The FC-31 is a mirror image of the Mig-29 in performance, and has the aerodynamic/shaping of the F-35, its a beautiful airplane, looks like it flies very well, even the initial proof of concept J-31, I'm very impressed in general with this airplane, it has lots of potential...
I thought V2 already used smokeless WS13 and V3 supposedly to use the more powerful WS19 that enable it to supercruise.
If F35 shape and material got compromised like you mentioned then China make a few of those prototypes and used them as targets to improve their radar and stealth planes.
That's huge implications
Brumby
Major
Espionage can only carry China's technological effort a certain distance. It also need the know how and manufacturing capability to deliver the precision needed for high end products. China might have the early blueprint of the F-35 but can it produce the engine capability like the F-35? There is a limit to stealing and copying. That said, the US is also recognising the threat and taking steps prevent further erosion in its technological advantage.
Copying the form doesn't mean it can deliver the substance. Said differently, just because it looks like one doesn't mean it can act like one. The crown jewel of the F-35 is not the stealth but its sensor fusion. The sensor fusion reflects the US epitome of its semiconductor industry. It is fusing the different sensors supported by DSP and FPGAs using state of the art avionics databus.. It is these technological areas that China lacks and why the US is taking steps to prevent China from either stealing or buying them. Do you know that China do not have the capability to produce FPGAs? They are central to modern day military electronics.. China is still using ARINC 429 avionics data bus for the J-10.
I think there is a certain amount of delusion grounded on fantasy and not reality to think that China can produce a cheap VLO fighter. You get what you pay for. There are no free lunches. For example, the IRST21 planned for the F-18 E/F cost $13.1 million a copy. The EPAWSS planned for the F-15C/E cost $11 million a copy. I would not even begin to guess how much it cost for the APG-81 which uses state of the art TRs supported by multiple FPGAs and DSP. IIRC, it is the only airborne fighter AESA radar capable of digital beamforming. In short, high end embedded military electronics cost an arm and a leg.
1)redundancy can cover alot of shortcoming. that why J31 uses twin engines.
2)US engineers salary and manufacturing cost more. The price listed is US priced. China price is different. x6 or x7 times cheaper.
3)Data fusion is limited by the first node or first plane at its foremost perimeter.
4)Quantity actually a quality. A large number of lesser capable stealth fighters still a force to be reckon with.
Last edited:
Brumby
Major
Sure based on the reliability of Russian engines and by default Chinese, I can understand the need for redundancy. However what has that got to do with the ability or lack of in building state of the art engines?
This point of comparative wage advantage has been brought up so often it deserves a bit of space to debunk such an argument.
Semiconductor business (as a proxy for military embedded systems) is highly dependent on R & D spending in order to derive strategic advantage. As such, semiconductor industry has the highest R & D spending among all major industries.
It is no surprise that the leading semiconductor companies spent the most on R & D. Based on 2017 data, not a single Chinese company is in the top 10.
Why is this important in our conversation? The important drivers in cost is innovation driven by technology and that in turn is derived from R & D and capex. As evidence, systems engineering only form a small portion of the total cost.
What is relevant is the ability to drive unit cost down through improvement in the manufacturing process driven by capex and R & D
The ever increasing cost inherent with new state of the art systems is driven by major leap in capabilities. The argument of lower engineering cost to deliver a cost advantage by China is not supported by the nature of the IC industry and by facts.
Is that meant to sound intelligent? I have done a lot of research on sensor fusion. I suggest you try a bit harder.
That may be the case but against a kill ratio of 20:1 your side of the maths is not very favourable.
I would suggest you take to time to listen and allow yourself to be informed by our singularly most intelligent poster when it comes to matters relating to 5 Gen electronics and sensor fusion...
Mr. Brumby is informed, honest, and objective about both sides of the coin here.
I heard a retired USN Admiral on the radio here in St. Louis tonight remarking that Chinese military hacking of the Joint Strike Fighter allowed the Chinese to leap ahead without having to put in the hard work of research and development.
While the Admiral was concerned and angry that this had been allowed to happen due to complacency, if he were to sit down with Mr. Brumby for an hour, he would leave feeling far less concerned.
Its a little difficult to build an aircraft that incorporates the aerodynamic advantages of the F-35, but the Chinese appear to have been reasonably successful in this endeavor, but the F-135 engine, electronic systems, Radar, EOTS, and Sensor Fusion?? that's a tall threshold to cross, and while the J-20 is making significant progress, they've got a long, long way to go...
Coming back the the FC-31/J-35, that bird is basically an airframe and two powerplants, its a proof of concept aircraft, and just because it bears a striking resemblance to the F-35 should NOT lead one to believe it is anywhere near the F-35 in development or capability.
Brumby
Major
Mr Brat,
You are being overly generous with your kind words. Your support is nevertheless appreciated.
- Status