AZN747

 找回密码
 立即注册
搜索
查看: 2201|回复: 1

Military technology fans please come in... [Ben2009]

[复制链接]
发表于 2014-12-25 20:26:00 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
[color=#999999 !important]查看: 887|[color=#999999 !important]回复: 18


Military technology fans please come in... [color=#999999 !important][color=rgb(153, 153, 153) !important][复制链接]
[tr][/tr]
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
回复
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
推荐
  楼主| 发表于 2014-2-5 01:13:19 | 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:


Much appreciated. 聽君一席話勝讀十年書.





回复 支持 1 反对 0
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
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.





回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
HC1265



主题
帖子
积分

积分880
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.





回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
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 .......








回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
5#
发表于 2014-2-5 00:03:59 | 只看该作者


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePd3Duo4LEY


Just view the first half of video re the latest aircraft carrier’s firepower/advanced  weaponry systems from USA.





One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind - Neil Armstrong, JUL21 1969.
回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
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.







回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
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.








回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
HC1265



主题
帖子
积分

积分880
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.





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.





回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2014-12-25 20:26:34 | 显示全部楼层
楼主: Ben2009

Military technology fans please come in... [color=#999999 !important][color=rgb(153, 153, 153) !important][复制链接]
[tr][/tr]
HC1265



主题
帖子
积分

积分880
11#
发表于 2014-2-8 13:47:42 | 只看该作者


Ben2009 发表于 2014-2-7 19:40
Thanks for your friend's insight. It is very helpful. One thing he may be incorrect about (or mayb ...


You are correct on the H-6, but it is better than nothing.





回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
12#
  楼主| 发表于 2014-2-8 14:08:43 | 只看该作者


HC1265 发表于 2014-2-8 00:47
You are correct on the H-6, but it is better than nothing.


True, but i just don't see how building a bigger bomber or transport is so difficult. There must a reason, to be sure, but I cannot figure out what that reason is (perhaps due to my lack of engineering background).





回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
13#
发表于 2014-2-9 03:16:59 | 只看该作者


type 52d is supposed to have true digitization of their phased array, which, supposedly the 52c did not.

as for the fighter. the J-20  2011 is supposed to be released soon.






回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
14#
  楼主| 发表于 2014-2-9 08:47:03 | 只看该作者


drunkmunky 发表于 2014-2-8 14:16
type 52d is supposed to have true digitization of their phased array, which, supposedly the 52c did  ...


B-52: Not sure why a bomber would need a phased array radar. It would rely on fighter escorts if attacked.

J-20: Soon is still likely end of the decade at best. Also, if is has to continue relying on Russian engines, that is going to be a real problem if war actually breaks out.  





回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
15#
发表于 2014-2-9 11:51:21 | 只看该作者


I don't know why you quoted me and talked about the B-52 when I was talking about the Type 52D DDG.

As for your comments on the J-20, the new 2011 is the redevelopment of the original 2001 with a new coating, in addition to new avionics inclusive of more advanced HUD.  They are developing with specific toolsets, ie: the 2002 has the weapons bay, loading doors and mounting systems. As for radar, we believe that the J-10b will have a new AESA. they've started serial production with PLAAF numbers 1001 1002 etc.

Comac is developing the ws-15 core based on the ws-10. it's not like the f35 doesn't have metallurgy issues. high bypass requires advanced metallurgical compositions. oddly enough the ws10 core is also going to be used for the ws-18 in the Y-20. they've been testing that engine along side the d-30kp-2's.


Edit:
I just read the prior conversation regarding the H6 and the B-52 comparison and now I know what you're talking about.
There have been whispers of stealth bomber designs, but we've only seen models of designs that have been rejected.

What I posted was just general updates of PLAN and PLAAF development, since this seemed to be a 'general' thread.









回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
16#
发表于 2014-2-9 11:56:36 | 只看该作者


H-6K has the most updated development, new avionics and radar radome, inclusive of redesigned inner bomb bay and 6-new wing pillars for nuclear arsenals.

H-6K also runs a more powerful engine than it's predecessor.

conventional bombers are still very important as per the B-52.





回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



[tr][/tr]
HC1265



主题
帖子
积分

积分880
17#
发表于 2014-2-10 12:59:17 | 只看该作者


Ben2009 发表于 2014-2-8 01:08
True, but i just don't see how building a bigger bomber or transport is so difficult. There must a ...



You are correct, the plane body is not that difficult. It is the engine that need time to refine & perfect.
That's lots of time.





回复 支持 反对
[url=]举报[/url]



18#
发表于 2014-3-23 20:34:35 | 只看该作者


海上霸王:The Zumwalt-class destroyers
A class of United States Navy destroyers designed as multi-mission ships with a focus on land attack. Low radar profile; an integrated power system, which can send electricity to the electric drive motors or weapons, which may someday include a railgun or free-electron lasers; total ship computing environment infrastructure, serving as the ship's primary LAN and as the hardware-independent platform for all of the ship's software ensembles; automated fire-fighting systems and automated piping rupture isolation. Originally 32 ships were planned, with the $9.6 billion research and development costs spread across the class, but as the quantity was reduced to 10, then 3.

In October 2013 the first of three U.S. Zumwalt-class class of destroyers [USS Zumwalt] left dry dock, the destroyer built with specific structural angles and a superstructure wrapped in a carbon fiber composite canopy to reduce its radar detectability by a factor of 50. The ship, with 80 missiles and a crew of 150, will include two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) that can fire rocket powered, computer-guided shells to destroy targets 63 miles away.





回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

AZN747

GMT-5, 2024-3-28 09:46 , Processed in 0.039118 second(s), 13 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

Copyright © 2001-2021, Tencent Cloud.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表