New Chinese Stealth Fighter F60

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,557]

 

http://www.airforceworld.com/pla/english/F60-stealth-fighter-china-shenyang-aircraft.html

 

They used the stolen Data about the F-35... looks like a nice mix of F-15/35/22 not bad!

 

[Ice Man 10]

This plane is very similar with the american F-22 Raptor and in my opinion has been copied by the chinese due to a work of espionage.Greetings,Ice ManTeo

[+Typhoid 231]

keep in mind that aerodynamics are the same in Mandarin Chinese or American English. It is not at all surprising that aircraft around the world with similar missions have similar characteristics.

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

Typhoid's on the money.

[+Nightshade/PR 7,855]

Nice looking a/c.

[+Gepard 11,213]

The chinese showed a lot of new aircrafts and helicopters in a very short timeframe (compared with the west and russia).

I ask myself very often wheter it could be possible, that we see Potjemkin Villages? Could it be, that they show us "playmaterial"?

[JediMaster 451]

Making a bunch of prototypes isn't that hard. You can use the same engines (because if the prototype is underpowered, who cares?), same landing gear, etc etc etc.

 

Taking a design you think you'll like and then making it into not only production-ready but also living up to the image it gives (ie 5th gen, integrated avionics, etc) is a lot harder.

 

The Russians built two MiG 1.44s, too. They never built another. Right now they have two PAK FAs. How long till it enters service?

 

How long after the YF-22 flew did the F-22A enter service after all?

[Baz_GFA 0]

Corruption and cost over runs are international

[FastCargo 412]

Shapes are one thing...avionics and materials are quite another.

 

It's not like the F-22 and F-35 are operated in secret...their layouts and general shapes have been known for a decade or more.

 

I'm not impressed by a shape on a flatbed.

 

FC

[+Typhoid 231]

Shapes are one thing...avionics and materials are quite another.

 

It's not like the F-22 and F-35 are operated in secret...their layouts and general shapes have been known for a decade or more.

 

I'm not impressed by a shape on a flatbed.

 

FC

 

 

On target!! What makes a modern combat fighter is avionics integration and reliable engines - neither of which has been demonstrated yet.

 

A decade or more until these prototypes are real operational aircraft.

 

Now, if the Chinese industry has succeeded in stealing THOSE technologies - that would be another matter (highly likely by the way!), but not anything that would be evident by a plastic mock-up on a flatbed or an empty airframe that can make a circuit around the pattern.

[+Stary 2,427]

another nicely looking (don't shoot me!) Chinese rework of not so fabulous Western (well, US) design...

 

and what Typhooid said, you want something new on-par with F-22&F-35, you don't design it as flying saucer after all

[+Brain32 265]

Nice plastic model

 

J-20 is ok but I don't have much trust in this one...atleast not yet

 

BTW MiG MFI or MIG 1.42/44 was a very interesting project, I hope it restarts one day as it looked great...

[JediMaster 451]

While it looked good, I think it represented a good gen 4.5 design at best. It wasn't very stealthy and I can't see resources being put into that design anymore when it was still so far from production.

 

Instead, they've been updating the Fulcrum as it's just as (un)stealthy but at least is proven and known. It will need a replacement at some point, however, and if the PAK FA represents the Flanker replacement, they will need one for the Fulcrum as well eventually.

[+Brain32 265]

Actually it was built to be stealthy and contain all gen 5 aspects Russians claimed it was just as stealthy as F-22.

Ofcourse we will never know many things about it as the whole project was and pretty much still is quite a secret, we know more about PAK-FA than about Mig MFI

 

Project was canceled(maybe as not even that is 100% sure) because of financial problems...

[Atreides 144]

Wasn't the MIG 1.44 supposed to have stealth like characteristics by incorporating "plasma stealth" ?

[Gr.Viper 131]

"plasma stealth" ?

Aka "bring out your heat seekers"?

[+Muesli 2,158]

Do they have people from 'InSky' working there as well???

 

[JediMaster 451]

Plasma stealth should likely be called "active stealth" while what the US has used to this point is "passive stealth".

 

The problem with plasma is...what happens if it breaks? Real fighter pilots have tons of stories about planes aborting because of a bad radar, screwed up HUD, fuel flow problem, etc. What are the odds your plasma generator is going to work that reliably? Would you necessarily know if it is or not? Might you fly into enemy ADA thinking you're invisible but your generator is fritzing and you show up just fine?

 

I don't know that I'd trust it that far.

[eraser_tr 29]

Well they definitely copied the F-35 and stuck an extra engine on there. Iran made a model of one of our drones a few months ago when one of ours crashed, that doesn't mean it was real. Lets see it in the air with a pilot first.

 

Has anyone actually verified this plasma stealth as real and working? The Russians have a history of making up s**t like that.

[FastCargo 412]

Has anyone actually verified this plasma stealth as real and working?

 

I'd be curious myself. Just because something is proposed doesn't mean that:

 

A) It works or

B) It's ever practical. Aircraft design has always been a balance, with things like range, speed, handling qualities and plain old physics limiting what you can and can't put on an aircraft.

 

FC

[+Brain32 265]

Well plasma stealth is not just a Russian venture, Americans also worked on it in the 60's

 

Russians however claimed they did it, applied it to the Flanker and that it reduced RCS by a factor of 100, what is true is hard to say, remember that when it comes to advanced weapons it may fall under START and various other agreements we may or may not know of...

 

MiG 1.42/44 was built as a "normal" stealth, plasma feature was suppose to be additional thingy...

[JediMaster 451]

I remember in the mid-90s there was this big "oh, the Russians have bistatic radar, stealth is useless" dustup that happened.

 

Just because theoretically or in a lab you can do something doesn't mean it's easily done in the field by troops. Besides, even today I think bistatic radar is mroe search-only, not track. A stealth plane that can be seen on search but not tracked is almost as good as not seen at all. It's still immune to ADA for the most part, just have to watch for interceptors closing in using guns or IRMs.

[+Stary 2,427]

guys, guys,easy! Could someone explain to me that "plasma stealth" thingy?

[+Brain32 265]

Wiki has a good explanation, beyond that I can't explain it either...

[+Stary 2,427]

oh, thanks, why haven't I thought about it