FLIR , IRST in air to air mission

[ricnunes]

Indeed the Soviets and now the Russians have had (unfortunately) quite successful espionage programs. The Soviets were quite hamstrung by their economic handicaps and were never even competitive quite frankly. I think at their best they were at was something like 40% of the U.S.’s GDP and were never a manufacturing powerhouse that China is. China has already surpassed us in PPP and will surpass us in the 2030s in raw GDP. I just do not see how you can compare the two and extrapolate capabilities this way. Certainly, white papers on China do not paint a very pretty picture on this issue. I’m inclined to look at this pessimistically unless concrete information supports otherwise.

On the other hand and despite all the money, the Chinese haven't been able to show nearly the same ingenuity and engineering skills to design and develop new technologies as the Soviets and Russians clearly have had. Basically what the Chinese have been doing is to take existing technologies (invented by someone else) and mass produce them and cheaply so.
Again (and I'm going to repeat this example for the third time in a row), the Chinese haven't been able to design jet engines! (I would really ask you to take note of this)
So if they (Chinese) aren't able to design successful jet engines then IMO it's hard to imagine that they could design aircraft that can be nearly as stealth as the American designs.

Regarding GDP (PPP) I wouldn't take this sort of statistic seriously because this is a statistic that is based on forecasts.
As opposed to other statistics which are based on real/actual statistics such as GDP (nominal), GDP per capita (nominal) and GDP per capita (PPP) the US is well ahead (and for GDP per capita both nominal and PPP the US is far, far ahead from China).
Basically you cannot reach the conclusion that China will surpass the US based on current forecasts because these will inevitable change in the future (look what's happening to the world right now as an example!). Or else the current and biggest superpower today would be Japan if the forecasts were always true, this based on the economical statistics of the 1980's.
Bottom line, the problem with such forecasts is that they don't take into account what the other countries - in this case the USA - will do to react to countries like China that are threatening the economic hegemony and the 1st place as the word's superpower.

The Chinese have a certain affinity for the canard-delta configuration. Its been in their design evolution since the J-8 in the mid ‘70s. So, it’s not surprising that they went this direction. There are certainly drawbacks to this configuration from at low observables standpoint. But it is not clear how much and how this relates to future LO aircraft designs. Certainly, future designs will need superior broad-band LO than current 5th Gen designs. So, I don’t find it surprising that they (Euro programs) aren’t going in the direction. That being said, programs like the Tempest and FCAS are probably not showing their actual designs but rather notional mockups for publicity purposes. I suspect that they’ll will go “tailless” designs like we see for our NCAD/PCA notional designs. So, I’m not sure comparing future notional designs to current 5th gen Chinese designs is really worth it. They have different LO objectives.

I don't think that the NGF and Tempest designs will change drastically or else instead of entering in service within the 2040's (at best) they will enter a decade or decades later than this. Yes, there will be some design changes from the mockups that we've been seeing compared to the 'final product' but these surely won't be something 'radical' as adding canards or something else along those lines. I would say that the changes between the NGF and Tempest mockups and the final aircraft will be similar to the YF-22 versus the F-22.
As such, no I don't think that they will be 'tailless'. They will be V-tail shape (like in the mockups) or basically the V-tail will replace both the combined set of twin tail and horizontal stabilizer which will mean two less surfaces "sticking out" from the fuselage and thus hopefully reduce RCS (one more thing which seems to back up my arguments regarding "canards and RCS").

I think Gen. Deptula’s comments are in line with my thinking; as are Tirpak’s comments. It is interesting that Gen. Goldfein’s comparison to the F-117. I realize that the AFA’s article relates to at 0.269 ft² RCS, which converts to -16 dBsm signature, but its been widely reported that the F-117’s signature is closer to the -30 dBsm range. AvWeek has it at -35 dBsm for instance. Given that in Ben Rich’s book on skunk works he was discussing how he’d pitch the F-117 to Air Force brass by rolling marble sized ball bearings across their desk suggest strongly to me that the -30 dBsm figure is probably the more accurate estimate. They arrived at this estimate by literally gluing different sized ball bearings on the test article on the range to see when the aircraft had a bigger signature than the bearing.

Yes, I've also read from other sources (although not military sources such as the above) that the F-117 had an RCS close to 0.001 square meters or within the -30 dBsm figure.
However if I'm not mistaken one of such sources was Bill Sweetman (writing articles in several magazines such as AvWeek) because he simply didn't believe that the F-35 could be stealthier than the F-117 and as such used the "Golf Ball RCS" value (reported as being the F-35 RCS) for both the F-117 and F-35. If this is the case (and if I'm not mistaken) than it's very likely that such RCS value for the F-117 (around -30 dBsm) stated by Sweetman/AvWeek is wrong/incorrect!

Anyway, I surely believe way more in General David Goldfein's statements compared to Sweetman/AvWeek which IMO makes more sense since the F-117 was actually the first and first generation US stealth aircraft so it would be "more than normal" that the F-117 RCS be higher than any of the other subsequent US stealth aircraft (B-2, F-22 and F-35).

I’m less worried about the platform vs platform side of things but more concerned on how our network will enable early detections to run intercepts with sufficient stand off ranges to protect HVA and enable us to push deeper into any A2/AD bubble. I’m not sure that networked 5th gen fighters is the answer alone. 40-50nm detection ranges, even if true, are problematic because that is a small search volume compared to say 115+ ranges with the -77/81s. Given that this thing is supposed to supercruise (with a ton of gas to do it) it could lead to very short reaction times and potentially failed intercepts.

Well I definitely and fully agree that aircraft like the J-20 will make things (interceptions) much harder for the 'blue' (US/NATO) forces, there's no doubts about it!
5th gen fighter aircraft are here to stay and one of the main the purposes of such 5th aircraft is definitely to make interceptions much harder by the opposing/enemy side. However like others have said here, I'm sure tactics are being developed by US forces as we speak to counter such threats.
One of the answers seem to be indeed a barrier of networked 5th gen fighters between the F-22/F-35 and the HVAA assets. The long range of the F-35's for example means that the distance between the 'barrier' and the HVAA target or targets is very big/large which should give plenty of time for earlier intercepts. Another tactic would be to quickly attack and overwhelm the enemy airbases and air defenses and thus achieving what it's called air superiority and a 24/7 surveillance over enemy territory in order to promptly detect any aircraft like the J-20 as soon as they are in the runway preparing to take off (Satellites, long range SAR and even IR imagery by "spy planes" and F-35s could be assets used for this purpose) and thus eliminating right away the threat even before taking off or just right after it.
Anyway, it would be naive to think that an armed conflict with China wouldn't result in 'blue' loses even including some HVAA assets!
However I'm pretty confident that the superiority of the F-22 and F-35 would grant the 'blue' forces the victory in such conflict, at least when it comes to the aerial part of that same conflict/war.

[wrightwing]

I think Gen. Deptula’s comments are in line with my thinking; as are Tirpak’s comments. It is interesting that Gen. Goldfein’s comparison to the F-117. I realize that the AFA’s article relates to at 0.269 ft² RCS, which converts to -16 dBsm signature, but its been widely reported that the F-117’s signature is closer to the -30 dBsm range. AvWeek has it at -35 dBsm for instance. Given that in Ben Rich’s book on skunk works he was discussing how he’d pitch the F-117 to Air Force brass by rolling marble sized ball bearings across their desk suggest strongly to me that the -30 dBsm figure is probably the more accurate estimate. They arrived at this estimate by literally gluing different sized ball bearings on the test article on the range to see when the aircraft had a bigger signature than the bearing.

I’m less worried about the platform vs platform side of things but more concerned on how our network will enable early detections to run intercepts with sufficient stand off ranges to protect HVA and enable us to push deeper into any A2/AD bubble. I’m not sure that networked 5th gen fighters is the answer alone. 40-50nm detection ranges, even if true, are problematic because that is a small search volume compared to say 115+ ranges with the -77/81s. Given that this thing is supposed to supercruise (with a ton of gas to do it) it could lead to very short reaction times and potentially failed intercepts.

115nm is a very very conservative number, as is 40 to 50nm vs .01m^2. Even a Flanker is supposed to be able to detect a target that size at that range, and the APG-77/81 are both superior to Irbis.

[milosh]

On the other hand and despite all the money, the Chinese haven't been able to show nearly the same ingenuity and engineering skills to design and develop new technologies as the Soviets and Russians clearly have had. Basically what the Chinese have been doing is to take existing technologies (invented by someone else) and mass produce them and cheaply so.

Pentagon estimate Chinese spend on military 2% GDP, USSR in 1980s spend 6% GDP and probable in decades before.

So nope they aren't similar to USSR, because USSR spend lot more GDP and any modern technology in USSR was more less connected with military industry, commerical industry was joke, so best would work for military.

Also USSR never was world engine which China is.

Basically you cannot reach the conclusion that China will surpass the US based on current forecasts because these will inevitable change in the future (look what's happening to the world right now as an example!). Or else the current and biggest superpower today would be Japan if the forecasts were always true, this based on the economical statistics of the 1980's.

Japan never was close to US in GDP as China is and salary gap was lot smaller in 1980s between Japan and America then what is today between China and America. Also Japan domestic market is noticable smaller then US one, while Chinese domestic market is bigger then US.

So using rising Japan as analogy to rising China isn't logical.

[ricnunes]

@milosh

It seems that you didn't correctly or fully read my post or you didn't understand it.

1- Regarding USSR/Russians in my last post, I was talking about the capability to be innovative and just because you put lots of money on something this doesn't make you (or a country in this case) innovative! Heck even to develop their main/best attack helicopter (Z-10) the Chinese had to resort to Canadian engines (Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6).
Moreover and for example the GDP of the USSR in 1985 was $2.2 trillion USD so 6% of this is $132 billion USD. As opposed the GDP of China in 2019 was $14.1 trillion USD and 2% of this is $282 billion USD, so China spends twice on defense in absolute numbers compared to the USSR of old days - Of course you have to adjust these value with inflation but at least this shows that the amounts spent by the USSR back then and China right now aren't far off specially considering the times of the Cold War back then.
Besides I'm pretty sure that the US spent way more in defense in terms of % of GDP in the 1980's compared to today, so I fail to understand your point about the "USSR not being similar to China" based on this metric (% of GDP spent on defense)

2- The "rising Japan as analogy to rising China" isn't logical indeed, instead it's factual!
It's a fact based on economical projections in the 1980's. I don't know how old you are and perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the 1980's? On my part and while being very young during the 1980's I do remember very well the economical projections in the 1980's based on economical growth for both countries (USA and Japan) which at that time predicted that if they continued Japan would surpass the USA if things didn't change. Of course this didn't happen for a myriad of reason which aren't probably worth discussing here.
Nowadays, you have a similar projection: A country also from the Far East (China in this case) which according to economical growth statistics may surpass the USA if things continue just the way they are.
And it doesn't matter how close or far was China and Japan from the USA in terms of GDP (today and then in the 1980's), these were the statistics then as they are now.
So, if you aren't able to understand the "rising Japan as analogy to rising China" then I'm afraid that I can't help you any further...

[madrat]

I'd think the shutdowns having been going on longer in China is really crunching their production numbers.

This event has to be the largest contractions of an economy for any one country in the history of mankind.

[milosh]

@ricnunes

I am talking about % of GDP, not nominal dollars, because it its shows how important military is for economy. USSR invest at least 6% but as military driven economy it was in fact even higher, for example USSR had huge stockpiles reserves of steel and other materials for military industry in case of WW3. That didn't go in military budget but did impact rest of economy. Same with best and brightest they will go to work in military industry.

And USSR was like that from end of WW2 so comparing Chinese investments in military with USSR doesn't cut. USSR had decades of massive investment in military industry.

In fact what China achieve for this short time with modest military budget is for congratulations not for underestimating.

Data about Japan didn't take in account Japan domestic market which is very important, China is lot more important market for rest of world then Japan ever was. So Japan could really only rely on export for constant economical growth which is double edge sword.

I'd think the shutdowns having been going on longer in China is really crunching their production numbers.

This event has to be the largest contractions of an economy for any one country in the history of mankind.

I don't think nothing in world right now can compete with almost 40 millions unemployed US citizens and biggest money printing in US history

And now mass protests...

[ricnunes]

@ricnunes

I am talking about % of GDP, not nominal dollars, because it its shows how important military is for economy. USSR invest at least 6% but as military driven economy it was in fact even higher, for example USSR had huge stockpiles reserves of steel and other materials for military industry in case of WW3. That didn't go in military budget but did impact rest of economy. Same with best and brightest they will go to work in military industry.

And USSR was like that from end of WW2 so comparing Chinese investments in military with USSR doesn't cut. USSR had decades of massive investment in military industry.

A "bigger percentage" of a small cake is still a "small chunk" of cake no matter how you put it.

A "smaller percentage" of a big cake is still a "large chunk" of cake, again no matter how you put it.

No matter how you put it, the amount on actual and equivalent dollars spent by China today on defense is very similar to what the USSR spent on defense back then which is something even more impressive if we take into account that the USSR spent the money on defense when basically everyone back then including the USA and most Western European countries were spending large 'chunks' (percentage of GDP if you prefer) on defense as well. Those were very different times from today due to the Cold War which up until now was the closest thing to an hypothetical WWIII (World War Three).

With your "USSR assessment versus China", you're also forgetting that the remaining 88% or so of China's GDP isn't spent solely on the "normal economy" as you seem to imply. For instance more than 6% of the Chinese GDP is spend on internal security! Those 6% are on top of and separate from the 2% spent on military and China actually spends more on internal security compared to the USA!
Here:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china ... 2018-03-06
and here:
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/China ... of-defense

In fact what China achieve for this short time with modest military budget is for congratulations not for underestimating.

If with the above you're implying that the Chinese only recently decided to spend considerable amounts of money on military/defense then I'm afraid that you're wrong.
Remember the Chinese built Tu-16 (H-6) strategical bombers which have been built since the late 1950's?
And the Chinese Mig-19's (J-6) built from the late 1950's until the 1980's? And the Q-5 attack fighter (which was based on the Mig-19) which was built from the late 1960's until 2012? And the Chinese Mig-21s (J-7) built since the 1960's? And the J-8s built from the late 1970's until 2010? And the J-10s which have being built since the late 1990's?

And I could go on and on and on...

Data about Japan didn't take in account Japan domestic market which is very important, China is lot more important market for rest of world then Japan ever was. So Japan could really only rely on export for constant economical growth which is double edge sword.

If you believe that China achieved it's economical 'prowess' and became the world's 2nd most powerful economy 'minimally' based on the internal market and not fully based on exports then I have some bridges to sell you!

[ricnunes]

I don't think nothing in world right now can compete with almost 40 millions unemployed US citizens and biggest money printing in US history

And now mass protests...

And guess what?? If the USA spent as much on internal security and ordered military forces to run over the protesters with tanks like your beloved China does then the USA wouldn't have such mass protests

[zhangmdev]

If you believe that China achieved it's economical 'prowess' and became the world's 2nd most powerful economy 'minimally' based on the internal market and not fully based on exports then I have some bridges to sell you!

The so-called miracle of China is largely due to industrialization and urbanization. Money and technology injection from the West played a very important part in that. During Nixon's visit, he gave the synthetic fertilizer plant China urgently needed to boost its food production. There was never a famine ever since. The Green Revolution enabled China to free up hundreds of millions of farm labor to move into cities, to work on the factory floors and in office cubicles. To be more productive. Since the 1980s, until relatively recently, western companies practically got on their knees begging to get into China's vast market and to access its cheap labor. The first western car mass produced in China is VW. There was a price to pay. The government owns at least 51 percent of the joint venture, and the foreigner must give up technology, and every cent earned stays in China. (I don't understand how anyone can get away with that. Maybe it is just luck.) Given a few decades, China has a lot of money, and the best technology available easily acquired. It can face the West with renewed confidence, more often than not with arrogence and contempt. I'd say the current predicament is largely the West's own doing.

[ricnunes]

@zhangmdev,

Yes, I fully agree with your assessment.
But if you look at China's industrialization (and together with this the "technology grabbing" which you mentioned) then what's the purpose of this?
Export and export 'alone'.

Yes, there is also some manufacturing of goods in China intended for internal market but the vast majority of it serves only a very small percentage of the population - the rich elite - with cars (like you mentioned) being a very big example of this or like we've been discussing here, also for defense and internal security.

This sort of "status quo" serves the Chinese government extremely well because if the Chinese people as a whole start to have better access to goods and have a better quality of life then they will trend to become better informed which means that they will start to look at their dictatorship government with increasing suspicion, just like it's happening with Hong Kong for instance.

So what the Chinese government really wants is to maintain the bulk of its population as an impoverished and slave-like workforce which allows it to export most of the world's manufactured good because other countries simply can't compete with such a huge and cheap labour force (unless world trade rules change again!) and with that becoming really rich without having to take care of the bulk of the population with the exception of occasionally throwing "a carrot or two" into the general population so that it believes that things are really improving well and that the (Chinese) government is doing a great job.

[zhangmdev]

@zhangmdev,
then what's the purpose of this?
Export and export 'alone'.

China is the largest automobile market worldwide. 20 million units sold in a year is not just for the rich elite.

China has already passed the sweatshop phase of development. The older generation is retiring. And the youngsters are increasingly unwilling to sit through long hours on the assembly line, and they are demanding higher wages. Houses and cars are expensive. Why is China still portraited as some dirt poor developing country is anybody's guess.

The leadership is worrying about the middle income trap, and the population not getting rich enough before getting too old. One solution is to dominate the global production, to have its own globally-recognizable brands, to set standards on its own terms, to be more competitive. Far more than simply to make and export some goods for quick money. That is a part of the multipronged attack on the West. The purpose is stated very clearly: to reclaim its rightful place in the world, to rejuvenate the glorious Chinese empire. The J-20 talked about here, and its military buildup as a whole, is a part of the effort to achieve that goal. The West should be flattered as well as alarmed. China is working very hard to emulate its killer apps. Capitalist investment and technological innovation from the West built the morden world. China is trying to rebuild it.

Anyboby expects China will be more open, more democratic when its population getting richer should certainly be disappointed. The opposite is ture. Leninist behavior is back. More government countrol. More propaganda. More censorship. It is increasingly futile and even suicidal to criticize the power. And the population seemingly happily get along with all that. In Chinese culture, all foreigners are filthy savages. Sometimes they can be used, but they can never be friends and allies. The West overlooked this at its grave peril.

[milosh]

A "bigger percentage" of a small cake is still a "small chunk" of cake no matter how you put it.

A "smaller percentage" of a big cake is still a "large chunk" of cake, again no matter how you put it.

Yes that is what I wrote to simplify, if China spend pennies on military in 1900s compared to US or USSR you can't compare it with USSR.

Here is US and USSR GDP through decades:
http://www.socialistaction.net/wp-conte ... 5-no-1.jpg

While US have noticable higher GDP (2-4times), USSR could match military spending because of different economical system but if you look PRC in same period, PRC couldn't no matter which economical system they used. Difference is huge.

For example during cold war PRC gdp was 10 or even more smaller then US and they had much bigger population to feed and cloth.

Only in 2000s PRC gdp became 3times smaller then US gdp and in 2010 they got to 2times smaller then US. So what USSR had from decades (33%-50% of US gdp) China only achieve recentily.

So only now we can say they are running same race USSR start running from 1960 until 1990, so to compare Chinese with Soviets we need to see were Chinese will be at 2040. BUT still it isn't exact becuase as I already point Chinese spend even by Pentagon estimates smallish % of GDP on military (2% to be exact and that is probable overblowed by Pentgon to get more money). USSR on other hand spend 6% or even more. And of course cost of internal security in USSR wasn't small either.

If Chinese contiue to spend 2% I don't see how we can compare then with Soviets, another story is how much stuff espeacilly ships they can buy for that "smallish" budget because that doesn't have nothing with investment in military but in shipbuilding.

@zhangmdev

In near future China could overspend US in military even though that wasn't Chinese "fault" but US fault. US waste uts military budget superbly. I mean of 720 billions only 150 billions is going for new equipment!?!

[ricnunes]

@zhangmdev,
then what's the purpose of this?
Export and export 'alone'.

China is the largest automobile market worldwide. 20 million units sold in a year is not just for the rich elite.

From those 20 millions, 1 million were exports. Granted that the majority is for the internal market but if we're talking about 19 million cars which were sold to 19 million Chinese people then yes, we're taking about a rich elite and a very small minority.
With a population of 1393 million, 19 million corresponds to only 1.36% of the (Chinese) population. So yes, we're taking about a minority elite here and a very small one by the way.

China has already passed the sweatshop phase of development. The older generation is retiring. And the youngsters are increasingly unwilling to sit through long hours on the assembly line, and they are demanding higher wages. Houses and cars are expensive. Why is China still portraited as some dirt poor developing country is anybody's guess.

I would say that some seem to look at the Chinese elite as being a representative or a significant representation of the Chinese total population, for which they are not! For instance 1% of the Chinese population owns more than one-third of all China's wealth:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589866/

And your line:
"And the youngsters are increasingly unwilling to sit through long hours on the assembly line, and they are demanding higher wages"

Who are those youngsters? The sons and daughters of rich people or people connected to the Chinese Communist party or military high ranking officers? Because for all the others there's only one viable and clear choice for them to "avoid the long hours on the assembly line" which is to emigrate and speaking of which, this is something which is still well on the rise (namely to the USA, Canada and a considerable number of Western Europe countries).

China's GDP per capita which is quite low - $10,098 annually - is a clear sign that the majority of the population is poor and also a clear indicator that China is still a "developing country".

[garrya]

Gripen IRST trial result for anyone interested:

[BDF]

Again (and I'm going to repeat this example for the third time in a row), the Chinese haven't been able to design jet engines! (I would really ask you to take note of this)
So if they (Chinese) aren't able to design successful jet engines then IMO it's hard to imagine that they could design aircraft that can be nearly as stealth as the American designs.

I'm well aware that the Chinese have struggled to master high end military turbo fan manufacturing. That is an entirely separate engineering discipline than airframe manufacture or systems integration for example. Many defense analyst that work for work for think tanks that have studied the problem, Gunziger, Work et al., have pointed out that advanced turbofans is the last hurdle the Chinese need to realize a full 5th gen capability. Will they match US designs in all respects? No, they don't believe so. But that doesn't change the fact that they're a significant threat to US forces. This is what I've been saying.

Look, its obvious that we're simply going to go around and around on this. We'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you're right and that I'm wrong, but I'm not convinced that is the case. I'll bow out now, Regards...