|
| 电梯直达[url=][/url]
楼主
发表于 2014-2-4 06:01:23 | 只看该作者
Its great to see so many history fans starting interesting topics. Personally, I am a huge military fan, in fact, I kind of wished I had an engineering background to I can understand more of what I read.
If there are any other military technology fans here, please share your thoughts.
Let me start by discussing the Chinese fighter developments. Currently, the only "true stealth" fighter that is in service is the US' F-22 and JSF. Both still has problems that are yet to be fully resolved. Russia is developing its PAK-FA stealth fighter to counter the F-22, but it is still in development. At the same time Russia is helping India to design its 5th generation stealth fighter, but have run into disagreements over price, technology transfer, and performance parameters. China has the J-20.
A major question I have is, how long will it take before the J-20 enters service? By most accounts, China has already surpassed Russia and is closing in quickly on the US in the areas of software, radar, avionics, but lagging far behind in engine development. Engine development is also a weakness for China is naval and land weapon systems such as destroyers and tanks. Can someone with an engineering background please explain to me in simple terms why engine development is so difficult as compared to other components?
Another topic. Anyone like to share what they know or think about the much touted "Chinese Aegis" Type 52D destroyer? Currently, all I've read so far are pure speculation, with some saying that it has already reached the ability of the US' Arleigh Burke class, while others dismiss it as nothing but a crappy imitation that will never hold up in battle.
| technology, Military, please
|
相关帖子
| [tr][/tr]
| 回复 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 沙发
楼主| 发表于 2014-2-4 06:03:13 | 只看该作者
Just for a balanced look at things. I usually like to read Chinese and Indian military forums to get the polar extremes in opinions. I also read the Western sources although their information always seems to lag behind the current developments. |
| | [tr][/tr]
| 回复 支持 反对 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 板凳
发表于 2014-2-4 13:30:35 | 只看该作者
Bro. Ben,
As long time old school practicing engineer, my explanation:
Conventional technologies like turbines, engines etc, depends on years of trial & error.
It takes a lot of research and investigation into accidents to achieve a little bit of new knowledge.
Software, electronics etc depend more on brain power. Set up a team of smart scientists/ engineers,
they'll research and produce advanced designs.
However, purchasing technologies from Ukraine gave China a jumping platform for advance development.
Educated guess only: the 52D is designed for sea battle in the South Pacific. Small target, cheaper, superior in number are the great points. The ship structure looked OK, but not battle tested yet. The electronics & radar likely lag behind. The missile likely has shorter range.
Continuous building, testing, practicing will likely result in great battle ships.
|
| | [tr][/tr]
| 回复 支持 反对 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 地板
发表于 2014-2-4 21:57:59 | 只看该作者
Speed ... technology. A toy for young folks la. Me ..... hehe.... my toy and only toy is MahJong.
I am not much deep in these but I like to express my little opinion.
Ignore the factor of threat from A-bomb for this sharing. Figther/attack jet are very crucial weapon in war combat. Disregard how good you have on water/land fighter/attack jets lead final victory. Fighter jets defense. Attack jets offense. American hv both jets on top of world.
From engineering/speed/design/equip US dominants all area. Russia next & follow Europe.
Indeed DRIVER(S) ... I use drivers, not driver .... make hugh differences. Let's say give Tomsiu a F-16 = no use because Tomsiu can't fly a plance.
Talking about speed/drivers WHITE guy (specially USA) dominants in F1, Indy, Daytona & barely seen an Asian. Russian been seen in tennis, B-Ball, soccer field but barely in SPEED sports.
Now I am making this unbelievable assumption ..... An american pilot flying a propeller jet can shoot down a filipino F-16 .......
|
| | [tr][/tr]
| 回复 支持 反对 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 5#
发表于 2014-2-5 00:03:59 | 只看该作者
| One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind - Neil Armstrong, JUL21 1969.
| [tr][/tr]
| 回复 支持 反对 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 7#
楼主| 发表于 2014-2-6 11:01:05 | 只看该作者
HC1265 发表于 2014-2-4 00:30
Bro. Ben,
As long time old school practicing engineer, my explanation:
Another 2 questions if you don't mind.
I always thought of helicopters as simpler and easier to build than airplanes. So why is it that China is quite advanced in the planes that it can produce, but so behind for choppers. For example, J-10 is probably as capable as latest variants of F-16, while J-11 is a completely reversed engineered Su-27 and can challenge the F-15, and design of the J-20 is in progress which is on par with F-22. On the other hand, China still cannot produce helicopters like the Sikorsky Blackhawk or AH-64 Apache which are both 80's era designs.
The second question is related to the first. Namely, why does China have such difficulty with large airplanes, such as large dedicated bombers, military transport/cargo planes, and even civilian airliners? To give an example, the B-52 was designed in the 50's is still in use today, whereas China still does not have one large bomber platform. Surely China's aerospace industry is not inferior than 50's era US? Same goes for An-124, Il-76, Tu-160, and even (hehe...) the Boeing 747... all of them are at least 30 years old, yet China still cannot produce similar designs.
|
| | [tr][/tr]
| 回复 支持 反对 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 8#
发表于 2014-2-6 20:59:29 | 只看该作者
Ben2009 发表于 2014-2-5 22:01
Another 2 questions if you don't mind.
I always thought of helicopters as simpler and easier to b ...
Let me say something before brother HC1265..... Not sure if it is ?
J-10/15/20 are fighter jet. Air-to-Air combat. Defense use only.
The attack choppers/B52 are for offense. Also aircraft-carrier!
American doesn't want to see too many attack machines by "potential" enemy.
American F/A-18 designed for dogfight and ground targets.
Nuclear Sub is offensive ship but it has weak moment .... needed to go surface to change air.
|
| | [tr][/tr]
| 回复 支持 反对 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 9#
发表于 2014-2-7 00:49:53 | 只看该作者
Ben2009 发表于 2014-2-5 22:01
Another 2 questions if you don't mind.
I always thought of helicopters as simpler and easier to b ...
I do not have direct engineering insight.
A friend of mine told me possible reasons:
- Jet turbine technology is the key weak point, need a long time to catch up.
- As a developing country, China has limited human resources & experience, therefore will develop
the more important items first.
- Fighter jets are high on defence priority, therefore lots of resources.
- Helicopters are only noticed in recent years.
- A smaller version of B-52 is tested recently and will go into production eventually.
Hope I give you some idea.
|
| | [tr][/tr]
| 回复 支持 反对 [url=]举报[/url]
| | |
| 10#
楼主| 发表于 2014-2-8 08:40:36 | 只看该作者
HC1265 发表于 2014-2-6 11:49
I do not have direct engineering insight.
A friend of mine told me possible reasons:
- Jet turb ...
Thanks for your friend's insight. It is very helpful. One thing he may be incorrect about (or maybe its me who is wrong), is that at present, China does not have anything remotely similar to the B-52 in service nor in production. The closest it has is the H-6 which is far smaller, with far less payload, and far less range, than the B-52. The H-6 is based on a 50's era Russian design, so it is quite obsolete. |
|
|
|