via Janes (read the entire article!).
The aircraft in the photo is China's J-18 VTOL stealth fighter jet.One thing is becoming increasingly clear. China has its sights set on challenging the US militarily...and on equal footing.
Japanese and US media have lots of speculation about China’s third fourth-generation stealth fighter jet J-18 in addition to the J-20 and J-31 already widely known,
Japan’s Asahi Shimbun was the first to publish a report on the successful test flight of J-18 at the beginning of 2013. It said that China began to develop its own catapult for the aircraft carrier it planed to build but lacked key technology to make such catapult; therefore, China scrapped its original plan for a carrier for horizontal taking off of aircrafts and began instead to develop VTOL aircrafts.
Soon afterwards, US Defense News weekly published an article that believed that China was developing short-distance vertical taking-off and landing stealth fighter jet, i.e. J-18 Red Eagle VTOL fighter jet, with superb stealth function and installed with laser active phased array radar, internal weapon bays and two vector engines with great thrust.
The Japanese and American reports, though sensational in nature and supplemented by later reports, are but speculation. There had been no evidence on the existence of J-18 whatever until now when Britain’s Jane’s Defense Review published a report on the fighter containing a recent photo copied from a post at a Chinese military forum on the Internet.
Judging by the photo given by Jane’s, J-18 looks almost the same as J-31 except its canard structure. This gives people the impression that it is a VTOL version of J-31. It sounds reasonable as developing a VTOL version saves money than the development of an aircraft from nothing. This is also the case with US F-35 stealth fighter jet. It has three versions including a VTOL version.
However, J-31 is developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation who has no experience in developing canard aircrafts. It is suspected that the aircraft is a national project participated by Shenyang and other aircraft manufacturers.
NOTE: Yes the article is from last year but I've only heard it speculated, never confirmed that China is building a VTOL fighter. The fact that the Pentagon hasn't referred to this airplane is telling.
That picture is clearly photoshoped.
ReplyDeleteThe chineese until today couldn't develop and engine equivalent to the russian RD-33 witch by itself is early 80ties soviet tech ( the engine that powers early MiG-29).
So ask youself what engine or engines doues this jet use. Either they copied the F136 totally unlikely.
Or they payed some russian design bureau to come up with some schematics.
The same way that is is rumored that the MiG had a helping hand in the J-20 design at an early stage.
Yeah, photoshoped for 100%, they sure like to work with that program there.
DeleteThere is something wonky going on just under the engine.
DeleteBut seriously... VTOL? How does anyone get that from looking at this pic (assuming it's not a fake)?
When are you going to prove you were in the Marine Corps?
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone could explain how a canard would provide vertical lift.
ReplyDeleteDon Bacon
DeleteCanard is useless for VTOL but is useful in STOL, where canard in high angle of incidence can generate extra lift and act as an air brake on touch down. This is why the Gripen is able to do 600 m STOL.
There is no J-18. China doesn't have access to powerful engine, and this is why J-31 was modified for two smaller engines, even then it doesn't have enough thrust to do level flights without turning on the afterburner.
ReplyDeleteThink about it, which is easier to do, cat and trap or VTOL?
So this Janes report is simply a canard: : a false report or story, a belief or rumor that is not true
DeleteFeng on PLAN carrier aircraft--
ReplyDelete...Also, the flight program off CV-16 has not really moved forward in 2014. We have basically seen the same 3 or 4 J-15 prototypes taking off and landing from CV-16. On top of that, while the first batch of production version of J-15s started in 2013, we have seen only up to 8 produced so far in over a year. PLAN may be choosing to produce the production J-15s slowly as they are working through any of the issues found in testing, since they don't need that many J-15s for operation off CV-16 and their naval aviation training center. Also, it goes to show that the process of developing and training a naval air wing is a long and deliberate process. In 2015, it will be interesting to see if more J-15s start to operate off CV-16, since 2014 has been quite slow in that aspect. Also, while the production of domestic carrier may have started or will start this year, I don't expect to see anything meaningful until probably 2016. I expect it to be delivered by 2019 to 2020.
Regarding VTO, fifty years ago it was widely thought that soon we would all have our individual jetpacks and go hopping around from one place to another employing vertical flight. Well it obviously didn't happen. The F-35B reminds me of that. It has VL and even VTO if you go light. It is certainly a technical marvel that actually works very well, but its practical usefulness (considering its drawbacks, as on the jetpack) has yet to be proven.
ReplyDeleteDon Bacon
DeleteGenerally any promised technology that deals with the law of physics fail or don't live up to promises. Jet packs or supersonic airliners, or VTOL fighters are hard to come by because of the laws of physics have not changed.
Vtol fighters for carrier borne operation kinda suck ,jump ramp launched conventional jets now days out preform them with ease.
Delete>Canards
ReplyDelete>Stealth
LOL
Eldererr, layman. LOL
DeleteWhat do you think is behind those canards? The wing. Which is going to reflect all the same. In fact, there is a chance that canards might actually "reduce" the signature by reflecting in 2 batches rather than as a single large wing. The initial stealth designs had some which had canards.
Owl,
DeleteCounter-stealth radar look for changes in RCS, not just the raw radar return signal.
A moving canard would have changes in return signal strength, thereby giving away its position.
There are solutions to this problem, like building canard out of material that lets radar beam pass through instead of reflecting.
And what material might that be?
DeleteYes and the reason canards didnt make the cut from initial design proposals was because its a compromise of VLO.
DeleteCant blame China, with the shit engines they have and awkward frame, they need every bit of vectoring they can get.
Sarabvir Singh
DeleteWhatever the material radome is made from.
Slow, isn't that the reverse, you WANT the radar to reflect, but only in the manner you want, that is why the F-22's cockpit has a thin layer of gold over it, so that the radar return isn't the pilot's helmet? A radar transparent body would then reflect off the internal workings of the plane, which is much less mallable to shaping for interference patterns.
DeleteObama agreed to sell EMALS to the third carrier of the Indian Navy during his visit to India.
ReplyDeletehttp://defense-update.com/20150126_india-usa-expand-defense-technology-cooperation.html
On his visit to India, President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi discussed the extension and expansion of the bilateral Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) agreement that has been in place since 2005. The DTTI will be expanded to another 10-year framework, but this time it will be focused on specific programs that both countries are interested in.
Both Obama and Modi promised the DTTI would take the bilateral defence cooperation to a new level altogether with “additional joint projects in the near future”. These include a working group to explore aircraft carrier technology sharing and design; (among the technologies India is seeking to get is the Electromagnetic Launch System (EMALS) that replaces the steam catapult on the US Navy new Ford class aircraft carriers. Other areas for technology sharing would include jet engine technology – as India is already planning to rely on the GE F414 engine from General Electric for its enhanced variant of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA II). Hagel said the US will also benefit from the cooperation, “We will begin to realize the enormous potential of the U.S.-India defense industrial partnership. We have further strengthened this partnership with an agreement that will allow us to continue science and technology collaboration for the next 15 years.”
Thanks for the update. I think it was May or June 2013 when General Atomics was first given permission by the US and made a technical briefing on the EMALS to the Indian Navy. As of now, the INS Virat Aircraft Carrier still remains in drawing and concept stage at our Navy Desigh Bureau but if there is one design board in India I have confidence on, it is the Navy one. This is going to be one Carrier that wont dissapoint. Except in time lag to production...heh.
DeleteAnd while EMALS might not be as sexy to report as a proper weapons system I think this is an amazing bit of news. The US never gives its very latest generation of technologies to its allies unless it is absolutely necessary. But here, the US has graciously extended its hand to India regarding a piece of tech. that can revolutionalize carrier operations. And they are giving it to a country which for long has antoagonized the US and vice versa. Now the next logocal step in this program is to also reach out to Vietnam and form a kind of South East Asia Network- SEAN for a purpose which requires no mentioning here. It is understood.
DeleteIf this can be done.....
then get some balls of steel and sell whatever it is that Taiwan wants to Taiwan. No kidding.
Sell EMALS?
DeleteRegarding China hacking, according to the Free Beacon compromised technologies include “know-how related to directed energy weapons, drone video systems, technical data links, satellite communications, electronic warfare systems, and electromagnetic aircraft launch systems.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWell, if the Chinese are eventually gonna get their hands on this stuff...then why not give the benefits of it to Taiwan or other countries that are actively anti-china?
DeleteEvery conflict between a US and Russia/China Ally has resulted in and will result in "mother countries" scampering for systems captured by their allies belonging to the other faction.
By the way....I just wanted to know if the US was responding back to the Chinese hackers by counter hacking?
Well , if they sell EMALS then india may just buy a bunch of Rafale M.
DeleteOr there is a plan to ' Hook'em up' on the F-35C after 7-8 years
Taiwan is not a country, and of course the US has been hacking China. I don't doubt that the US was first with the NSA. A review of wikileaks and Snowden's data might show that. I wouldn't be surprised.
DeleteOn the larger issue, control of technology in this day and age has largely proven to be impossible IMO. But anyhow technology is not the major factor in warfare, people are. US military history is replete with examples of the US (and others) prevailing over other forces not with technologically better equipment but with greater numbers, better training and motivation, and inspired leadership. History also provides examples of the opposite results, as the current wars.
Let's make sure EMALS works first. There hasn't been anything published on it in six months, and you know what that means. (Like we haven't heard anything on the f-35 engine redesign in three months.)
DeleteOn EMALS publication of information.....we can be assured that Don Bacon heard it first and will guide the rest of us to that source.
Delete"It said that China began to develop its own catapult for the aircraft carrier it planed to build but lacked key technology to make such catapult; therefore, China scrapped its original plan for a carrier for horizontal taking off of aircrafts and began instead to develop VTOL aircrafts".
ReplyDeletePoint here, The Russians never went past the planing stages for catapults on carriers, Liaoning (CV-16) the PLA procured from the Ukrainians based on the Russian Carrier never had cats it uses a ramp and hydraulic chucks to lock the jet in place until the engines hit military thrust then the pilot signals the shooter who drops the Chucks releasing the Jet up the ramp. the only Area the Russians Deemed a Cat necessary for was launching AEW/COD birds, but a SSTOL bird could eliminate that need.
wrong aew aircraft like the cancelled yak-44 were designed for ski jump launches, and grumman has said the e-2 can aswell (when asked about operating from the uk's cvf carriers, but they still require arrested landing and the uk was being tight) the soviets were also building a nuclear carrier with a ski jump and catapults and it was more than 20% complete by the time the soviet union collapsed. the main advantage of catapults over ski jumps is that each catapult can launch a naval aircraft at it mtow and us carrier have for of them where as a ski jump, and i'm going to use the kuznetsov execution here, can launch 2 aircraft in air to air config at a time but only one in a strike config (MTOW) at a time, so for a strike platform catapults are superior, but it should also be remembered that the russian method can launch planes for each position at twice the rate as a catapult can (there is so much faffing about hooking a plane up to a catapult compared to just using the chocks u mentioned
Deletewrong aew aircraft like the cancelled yak-44 were designed for ski jump launches, and grumman has said the e-2 can aswell (when asked about operating from the uk's cvf carriers, but they still require arrested landing and the uk was being tight) the soviets were also building a nuclear carrier with a ski jump and catapults and it was more than 20% complete by the time the soviet union collapsed. the main advantage of catapults over ski jumps is that each catapult can launch a naval aircraft at it mtow and us carrier have for of them where as a ski jump, and i'm going to use the kuznetsov execution here, can launch 2 aircraft in air to air config at a time but only one in a strike config (MTOW) at a time, so for a strike platform catapults are superior, but it should also be remembered that the russian method can launch planes for each position at twice the rate as a catapult can (there is so much faffing about hooking a plane up to a catapult compared to just using the chocks u mentioned
DeleteAs we all know, word out there is that china is developing "indigenous" carrier designs.
ReplyDeleteWell i have a feeling we don't have to look further than here :
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Ulyanovsk
Couple that with an existing steam catapult design ( acquired by china from france or US ) and they should be good to go.
Only problem Su-33 were never designed to be launched by catapults. So the chineese should have hard time addapting existing types of jets from they inventory.
Maybe a substantially redesigned FC-31 with engines that are equvalent to the EJ200 or F414. . . again does darn engines.
Chinese are funny for sure they can have a space program , but for some reason they cannot produce a reliable analoug of US engines like the F-100 or even the F-404
There is nothing misterious or ubercomplex about steam catault ,its just much harder to have useful capacity and frequency on conventionaly powered carrier that has much harder time making enough steam compared to Nuclear powered carriers.
DeleteChina doesn't really require any carriers because it doesn't have a serious overseas military power projection strategy, so it dabbles in carrier development because that's what important countries are supposed to do. Plus there are many who have (correctly) concluded that carriers are obsolete given the advances in ISR, missiles and guidance.
DeleteOfftopic
ReplyDeleteChinese Marines Northern drillings
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5lVejdTd9d4/VMM5noTxPmI/AAAAAAAAW7A/jaV5QSEt2WY/s1600/Chinese%2BPLAN%2Bmarines%2Bin%2Bcold%2Bregions%2B1.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wX5SIODMiL8/VMM5nr0EUwI/AAAAAAAAW7I/EU8OWVs2rzE/s1600/Chinese%2BPLAN%2Bmarines%2Bin%2Bcold%2Bregions%2B2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-21O8AT7q8fI/VMM5qt5TMrI/AAAAAAAAW7U/aEROTXfsYTA/s1600/Chinese%2BPLAN%2Bmarines%2Bin%2Bcold%2Bregions%2B4.jpg
Until China can deploy a carrier fleet for a week off the coast of California, it isn't challenging anybody.
ReplyDeleteIt lives in a shitty neighborhood and it is building a military to dominate it's neighbors and deny access to the US.
everyone is forgetting one word.
DeleteAfrica.
you don't need super high performance aircraft but you do need airplanes that can get the job done. additionally if you're gonna make your Marines your "expeditionary" force, and if you're going to build an LHD that is bigger than most nation's carriers then it makes sense to develop a VTOL airplane to operate from them.
i'm surprised that everyone is so stubborn in their thinking on this.
why is it so unimaginable that the Chinese might be improving their engine tech at the same rate as they've improved their airplane, ship and armor designs? if you don't think that they're close to having engines that are competitive then you're thinking about old China. this new beast is getting it done and you're foolish and biased if you think that.
DeleteOk One example lets look at the earliest variant of the highly sucessful and reliable US F404 engine witch is late 70s tech.
Right now china is not able to field a similar reliable engine on they're own design.
That is why they use Russian engines mostly in the JF-17.
Look if they would come up with a reliable copy of the F119 engine now that would be a game cnager in they're fighter aviation.
so everyone on this blog can identify this problem and you think the Chinese aren't moving heaven and earth to correct it? you don't think that in addition to stealing the F-35 plans they didn't steal engine tech? oh and just to be clear there are reports they did....but again, everyone states that until they produce engines they're worthless?
Deleteprediction from me. expect that to be a last minute surprise. the minute that happens everyone in the USAF shits bricks and they know that funding will be unleashed. why let that cat out of the bag if its not to your advantage. to be honest i suspect that they probably already have similar engines already in service...its just secret.
I don't think the PLA is interested in operating in the exact same manor as the Us but they do with to challenge the status quo and shift the Pacific and Indian ocean to their favor. LHD's and Carriers are definitely on there wants but VSTOL may not be. It's the easiest carrier to build but the most complex aircraft with the Shortest range most complex design requirements. only two types have reached full production and success the Harrier series and the Russian Yak 38 with only the Harrier remaining in service. the most efficient form of Carrier has been the Catapult type seen in US, French and for a time British carriers. but it requires specialized ship construction the mid point of which the Russian Short take off Arrested recovery model seen in Indian and Russian carriers seems the best middle ground.
DeleteIf the PLA wishes Ground attack from a LHD they can use rotary wing or attach a Carrier to the amphibious formation.