miles316 Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 The interesting question is what the real capabilities of the DF-21s (Chinese anti carrier ballistic missiles) are. The real threat is all about having carriers on station to project the firepower, if the DF-21s are good enough to deter the carriers from coming close, that's a more credible scenario. (which instantly made me think of gigantic submersible carriers as the next counter measure... protected by submarine escorts... my goodness, Macross Zero is full of goodies today) There was yet another article in Aviation week that talked about this in more credible terms, it was as much about the stealth fighter as it was about the DF-21. The one question about the DF-21 is will it maintain hypersonic speed through out its flight or will it slow it self down when it is over the carrier task force? How does the missile locate the Carrier is it still flying at hypersonic speed RADAR, Inferred/Visual are its only way trying to hit a moving target Inertial guidance and GPS are fine hitting fixed land targets but a Carrier will move like two miles in the fifteen minute flight time. I'm assuming it's fifteen minutes. If they slow it down to supersonic speed and discards its heat shield it will be able to use Radar and IR/Visual tracking to locate the Fleet and zero in on the Carrier. Supersonic anti ship missiles have the advantage of coming over the horizon and flying close to the sea giving Aegis seconds to locate and target the missile that is what would have given the Russians the advantage in a war. With the DF-21 coming from over head negates the cruse missile advantage because the Aegis will have a minute or minutes to target the missile if the interceptor missile fails to take it out the fleet had Sea Sparrow, Ev-Sparrow, CRAM, Standard, CIWS to try to knock out the missile when it gets over head. Their is also electronic counter measures Jamming that could blind the missile RADAR though the missile might default to a Anti Radiation missile, but better to lose a destroyer than a Carrier.
kalvasflam Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 The one question about the DF-21 is will it maintain hypersonic speed through out its flight or will it slow it self down when it is over the carrier task force? How does the missile locate the Carrier is it still flying at hypersonic speed RADAR, Inferred/Visual are its only way trying to hit a moving target Inertial guidance and GPS are fine hitting fixed land targets but a Carrier will move like two miles in the fifteen minute flight time. I'm assuming it's fifteen minutes. If they slow it down to supersonic speed and discards its heat shield it will be able to use Radar and IR/Visual tracking to locate the Fleet and zero in on the Carrier. Supersonic anti ship missiles have the advantage of coming over the horizon and flying close to the sea giving Aegis seconds to locate and target the missile that is what would have given the Russians the advantage in a war. With the DF-21 coming from over head negates the cruse missile advantage because the Aegis will have a minute or minutes to target the missile if the interceptor missile fails to take it out the fleet had Sea Sparrow, Ev-Sparrow, CRAM, Standard, CIWS to try to knock out the missile when it gets over head. Their is also electronic counter measures Jamming that could blind the missile RADAR though the missile might default to a Anti Radiation missile, but better to lose a destroyer than a Carrier. I don't think anyone knows the answers, but at least according to the USN, the DF-21 has achieve initial operating capabilities, whatever that means. There hasn't been an over the water test from what people knows. I doubt if this thing is meant to turn itself into a cruise missile. The whole thing struck me as pretty unlikely to start with because basically, I still think of ballistic missiles as a giant rock with a roughly preset target and coordinates, yeah, may be you can change a bit of that on the fly, and to hit a moving target (that is probably maneuvering) means being able to adjust in the last few seconds. What I've read is that it's supposed to have satellite capability (don't have a clue what that means), but that's still a far cry from being able to hit a moving target. I wonder how the SM-3s will be able to take down something like DF-21, because it's supposed to be used for theater BMD, so in theory at least, it's specifically able to defend against these things. Of course, if this was the case, the logical conclusion for China is to MIRV the DF-21, I actually thought that would be the initial thinking anyway, but I wonder how tightly they can cluster the shots as it comes down. I would assume you need just a couple of hits from the top to disable a modern carrier. I wonder if China could conduct a test over water with the DF-21 against a maneuvering target, that would really force a rethinking on the part of the USN. Right now, I'm sure the threat is still more theoretical.
kalvasflam Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Again, off the top of my head - you still have to acquire the targets, which presumes either some sort of sensor system on the airframe or on an airframe linked to all the drones (and its unlikely one modern multi-engine sensor platform would be able to handle, in the very best case, about two hundred or so "friendlies" all at once - theres a reason you have squadron leaders after all. Or, I suppose ground control - better hope they don't work out where you're transmitting from and send a few cruise missiles into the control bunkers, eh?), with "pilots" who probably haven't been trained (regardless of on-line experience) in modern multi-linked fighter combat techniques (Oops, due to sensory overload Drone pilot 67 just flew into your AWACS!). And, although I've only been at the controls of a light aircraft for about 5 minutes total, my lasting impression was, wow, real flying isn't like Ace Combat! Not to mention also finding all the control set-ups, bandwidth and accommodation for the "XBox Air Force"...! I know you're probably not being entirely serious, sorry, just can't help replying...! Oh, you're absolutely right about all of that stuff, especially how filling the skies with that many drones is counterproductive. I would think the ability to coordinate several hundred aerial assets at once is difficult already even if they are manned, don't know what the PLAAF experience is there, putting people in front of a video screen is probably a step beyond that, and I imagine it must be a nightmare to coordinate even a dozen Reapers in the same air space right now as some of the Pakistan operations are going, and that's a situation where there is no one shooting back at you. I do like the Xbox Air Force concept though, remember, in a few years, with the Kinect, people might not even have to have a real stick or a controller anymore. May be they can just make a random finger gesture, and off goes a missile in real life. Flying would really be like the Guld experience in the YF-21. I think China would just go with a long range tanker killer using their new J-20. Hmmm, where are the recessed missile bays anyway, it wasn't clear at just a glance. Oddly enough, the J-20 flew while good old Bob Gates was in China, talk about a slap in the face. But I'm leaning toward this more as a show horse than anything else, look at the background, those were frigging apartment buildings, probably with Chinese bloggers using telephoto lenses and trying to get the picture to Aviation Week. Even at a billion people, there are very remote regions in China where you would carry out flight tests away from prying eyes.
miles316 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I don't think anyone knows the answers, but at least according to the USN, the DF-21 has achieve initial operating capabilities, whatever that means. There hasn't been an over the water test from what people knows. I doubt if this thing is meant to turn itself into a cruise missile. The whole thing struck me as pretty unlikely to start with because basically, I still think of ballistic missiles as a giant rock with a roughly preset target and coordinates, yeah, may be you can change a bit of that on the fly, and to hit a moving target (that is probably maneuvering) means being able to adjust in the last few seconds. What I've read is that it's supposed to have satellite capability (don't have a clue what that means), but that's still a far cry from being able to hit a moving target. I wonder how the SM-3s will be able to take down something like DF-21, because it's supposed to be used for theater BMD, so in theory at least, it's specifically able to defend against these things. Of course, if this was the case, the logical conclusion for China is to MIRV the DF-21, I actually thought that would be the initial thinking anyway, but I wonder how tightly they can cluster the shots as it comes down. I would assume you need just a couple of hits from the top to disable a modern carrier. I wonder if China could conduct a test over water with the DF-21 against a maneuvering target, that would really force a rethinking on the part of the USN. Right now, I'm sure the threat is still more theoretical. I you go with a MIRV on the DF-21 the individual devices would be less effective since they would have less mass or explosives to damage a carrier with a nuclear bomb the individual war heads were made smaller, but did not lose any of their wallop and the Boomer's explosive potential rose several dozen orders of magnitude when they were introduced. The Russian supersonic cruse missile were relatively cheep and ships could carry a dozen or more on a single ship. I don't think the DF-21 will stop a carrier from striking targets on china's coast it just wouldn't allow the navy to concentrate on one area for more than a few hours. In the end the DF-21 is really a point defense weapon not a sea dominance weapon. It may be a paper tiger meant only to delay the US from sending a carrier battle group to defend Taiwan. I wonder if the Navy could use the F-22 to deploy the 500 lb JDAM at high altitude while super cruising and program the bomb to have a steep angle to simulate a missile and use a Land based Phalanx and Rolling Airframe Missile (C-RAM)to try to knock it out in mid air. The Land Based CIWS is capable of knocking out a 150 MM artillery round in mid air and I would assume the DF-21 warhead would be larger than that.
Ghost Train Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) I wonder if there are knock-off model kits of the J-20 already.... Edited January 12, 2011 by Ghost Train
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Irony: A US or German company copies the original Chinese kit...
Graham Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Apart from the engine nozzles, I think the J-20 looks much nicer than the F-22. Graham
kalvasflam Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Random thought, I wonder if the J-20 would enable the JASDF to talk the US into an export version of the F-22. Yes, I'm still a die hard fan of the F-22, and I still want the production line to reopen. In response also to miles316. Yep, the DF-21 might be a paper tiger just like the J-20. But if it serves as a deterrence against US carriers from operating with impunity over a certain area, then it's accomplished its purpose. I think it certainly has forced US planners to think about a different threat dimension. However, if it really came to blows, the consequences would be horrific for all involved, if a DF-21 get in a lucky shot on a CVN, well, it has a nominal crew of about 6000 if I recall.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Apart from the engine nozzles, I think the J-20 looks much nicer than the F-22. Graham Even the underwing actuator(or whatever they are) clutter?!?!? Edited January 12, 2011 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 F-22 has worse actuator fairings IMHO, has always spoiled to the design to me. Hard to imagine they're stealthy...
Vifam7 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Even the underwing actuator(or whatever they are) clutter?!?!? IMPO the landing gears and covers look awful. One thing the Russians and Chinese don't do well is make good looking legs for their fighters.
David Hingtgen Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Most stealth planes have very large, simply-shaped gear doors. It's because: A. Doors are hard to stealthify (that's a word!) and the fewer you have, and the simpler the shape, the less work it is. B. Every time you open a door/panel, it screws up the seal, so you try to combine weapon/gear/access panels as much as possible. So most stealth planes have very large gear doors, to provide access to other systems without having to have more access panels. The F-22 and J-20 main gear doors are roughly similar, just hinged at the opposite ends.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) I am starting to like the looks of the J-20. Like Graham, I think if it had F-22 (or better YF-23) style nozzles it would look pretty nice. Waiting for the Dragon/Trumpeteer kits/ready mades! I saw a J-10A 1/48 diecast while I was in China last week. Quality was about 80-90% of Dragon Wings quality(wheels down only though, can't seem to remove, and missiles not detachable). But the damn thing about these Chinese diecast aeros is that the damn box never ever says who made it. Considering that it wasn't a knock-off (since no one else made one), I wonder why they don't bother. Wanted to buy it but it was 700 rmb and I didn;t have half the cash on me at that time. David : What is that yellow airbrake thingy on the J-20 about and why is it deployed on takeoff? IMPO the landing gears and covers look awful. One thing the Russians and Chinese don't do well is make good looking legs for their fighters. Well, the Russkies tended to have large wheels during the Cold War for their jets for rough field handling (WW2 holdover?). I guess they go for the 'Simple and tough' approach. Edited January 13, 2011 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Vifam7 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Well, the Russkies tended to have large wheels during the Cold War for their jets for rough field handling (WW2 holdover?). I guess they go for the 'Simple and tough' approach. IIRC it was not for "rough field" ops (like from dirt strips) but more for the fact that many of their airbases were crappily maintained and not built to high standards.
David Hingtgen Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 The airbrake thing is most likely a temporary spin-chute housing. Like the orange/white YF-19 had.
electric indigo Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Apart from the engine nozzles, I think the J-20 looks much nicer than the F-22. Graham It's the canards. They instantly sexify your plane. I wonder why american manufacturers completely abandoned the concept.
F-ZeroOne Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 It's the canards. They instantly sexify your plane. I wonder why american manufacturers completely abandoned the concept. ...because one of them is reported to have said "The best place for canards is on someone elses airplane!"...?
Vifam7 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) It's the canards. They instantly sexify your plane. I wonder why american manufacturers completely abandoned the concept. The US never had a need for a canard fighter. When the Euro-canard fighters were being designed, the US already had the teen fighters in service and were already looking toward stealth. I think some of the advantages offered by canards were replaced by thrust vectoring and negated by the need for stealth. Edited January 13, 2011 by Vifam7
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 \ I think some of the advantages offered by canards were replaced by thrust vectoring Same premise with the T-10/SU-35BM lacking canards.
Chewie Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 My roommate walked in the other night while I was looking at this picture and said "WTF did they do to the F-22?!" I laughed then died a little inside.
Ghost Train Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) J-20 is really just a distraction to keep eyes away from their real super weapon: The J-78-2 太空铁猩猩, NATO reporting name: FUNDAM. Edited January 13, 2011 by Ghost Train
Shadow Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 An interesting line drawing and comparison of the F-22, T-50 and J-20 in terms of size. Was surprised how small it actually makes the Raptor look.
kalvasflam Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 An interesting line drawing and comparison of the F-22, T-50 and J-20 in terms of size. Was surprised how small it actually makes the Raptor look. Wow, how interesting, they listed estimated costs on the last line. It essentially said the production model of the J-20 is expected to be about half the cost of the F-22. Fun. It would make it just slightly cheaper than the F-35. Sign me up for the mass production version.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 What a porker! This seems to be from a Taiwanese or HK source (from the traditional character set used), so not sure how accurate the info is.
Knight26 Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 F-20 PORN!!!! One of the older guys at my work has worked for Northrup since, well the early F-5 days, and has worked on a metric @$$ ton of programs for them, including hte F-20 and YF-23. He just handed me a folder filled with F-20 pictures, most of which I have never seen before and said I could keep the dupes. How freaking awesome is that? I will post the pictures I kept after I get home and scan them in. Some are even of all three F-20s flying together! I so wanted to just take that whole folder and run, I just wish the scanner at work could have accepted the drawings he had too, but they were too big. Oh and he says he'll bring in his YF-23 folder next for me to get all hot and bothered over.
Vifam7 Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 F-20 PORN!!!! One of the older guys at my work has worked for Northrup since, well the early F-5 days, and has worked on a metric @$$ ton of programs for them, including hte F-20 and YF-23. He just handed me a folder filled with F-20 pictures, most of which I have never seen before and said I could keep the dupes. How freaking awesome is that? I will post the pictures I kept after I get home and scan them in. Some are even of all three F-20s flying together! I so wanted to just take that whole folder and run, I just wish the scanner at work could have accepted the drawings he had too, but they were too big. Oh and he says he'll bring in his YF-23 folder next for me to get all hot and bothered over. I am jealous. Looking forward to seeing those photos.
Knight26 Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 He only had 10 dupes out of the nearly 100 photos in the folder, and I only took those. Also many were water damaged and I only took the worse off ones, so there is some damage, but most, if not all of them are pictures that I at least have never seen before.
David Hingtgen Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Eek! The F-20 is second only to the YF-23 for "awesome planes I love that never got built but should have won because they were better". I'm especially interested in F-20 weapon load pics, especially mixed loads with Sparrows or Mavericks. Any Shrike/HARMs?
Knight26 Posted January 20, 2011 Posted January 20, 2011 Eek! The F-20 is second only to the YF-23 for "awesome planes I love that never got built but should have won because they were better". I'm especially interested in F-20 weapon load pics, especially mixed loads with Sparrows or Mavericks. Any Shrike/HARMs? Oh yes he had plenty of those, but no dupes of them. He also had some with MW-1 style munitions dispenser (sorry can't remember the american equivalent.) I'm going to try and convince him to take them all to the photo lab and have them scanned, for posterity of course.
Ghost Train Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 The J-20 is now moe: This one is epic, like something out of AC: Images from Sankaku (nsfw site)
Lindem Herz Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 I couldn't care less for all that moe bs... but damn if that last one isn't an awesome painting.
Shadow Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 We need Clint Eastwood to go over and steal one.
Recommended Posts