Thread: Chinese 5th Gen Fighter Photo - Aviation Week

Originally Posted by Inst

If you go with that argument; the Chinese are at the earliest stages of learning to do anything with anything. We can look at Damien's criticisms of Chinese tank turrets; those combine the Soviet cast turret with the Western welded turret without understanding that the Western turret geometry requires significant amounts of side armor to protect the side of the turret. Only recently have their tanks fielded substantial side turret armor. Same with carriers, same with air combat.

Even as recently as Vietnam, the Chinese ended up using direct fire artillery attacks instead of indirect fire.

Yes. The argument still holds water, although not as strongly across the board.

Originally Posted by Inst

If you go with that argument; the Chinese are at the earliest stages of learning to do anything with anything. We can look at Damien's criticisms of Chinese tank turrets; those combine the Soviet cast turret with the Western welded turret without understanding that the Western turret geometry requires significant amounts of side armor to protect the side of the turret. Only recently have their tanks fielded substantial side turret armor. Same with carriers, same with air combat.

Even as recently as Vietnam, the Chinese ended up using direct fire artillery attacks instead of indirect fire.

===

With regard to computing advances; I'm not so sure about that. I am an amateur photographer and a bad photographer, but advances in noise reduction have not been sufficient to compensate for lack of quantum efficiency. At the end of the day, you're limited by the SnR of your sensor; and every time you remove noise, you also remove signal.

Define substantial side turret armor please. The Challenger I and II had very heavy side armor, but they were designed to fight the Soviets on the North German plain being flanked was a very real possibility. The Abram and Leopard II both chose mobility over massive protection. The Abrams took the idea of maximum armor to the front to extremes. The Areite and Leclerc fall in middle ground. Overtime the Abrams has added more than 20% to its original weight and the Leopard II is rumored ot have gained even more weight. This has indeed bumped up the side protection but probalby not to extremes you might be thinking. In the Abrams the basic design concept still holds and is now proven in battle- put the crew behind an armored shield, not in an armored cup. But this concept was designed when the Soviets were the enemy.

Unlike the Brits, the US had far less concerns about a turned flank in good tank country, plus better defensive terrain to start with so it made sense to maximize armor to the front level to give the Abrams the ability to try and kill tank after tank or at least fire shot after shot. Admittedly the guys who decided on the gun for the M1 did not do the army any great service. The Abrams was designed from the get go to take the 120mm but was given a 105mm as a cost saving measure...

The Abram's armor especially early models was also very mono-threat oriented. Soviet doctrine in the 70's and 80's called for HEAT warheads to be the primary tank killer. So the early Chobbham style ceramic armor the Abrams used was focused on this threat.It wasn't until the Soviets finally ditched the bore riding sabot concept that the Abrams protection began to take on duel focus that could deal with KE and CE threats. Granted Soviet spool style sabots suffered from two piece ammunition, even the newest Russian designs are limited by this handicap.

Also have you ever seen a T-90 Vladimir turret with the ERA removed? Most people expect to see a typical T tank frying pan and are more than a little surprised by whats actually hiding behind that heavy ERA.

The next revolution is her in one of two forms- thermal supression and thermal manipulation. The Ukrainians developed a thermal blanket that effectively keeps the surface of the tank at ambient temps. Not perfect but much better than what had been the norm. Metal heats and cools at much different rates than natural materials and except for a very brief window each day where the cooling tank's temps and rising ambient temps matched. Outside of ths window tanks standout like sore thumbs on Thermals and make use of the terrain a key skill.

But its what BAE and the Swedes have done that has thrown the book out the flipping window. Adaptive is mind blowing. It can not only suppress the tanks thermal signature to the enemy while bill boarding the tanks loyalty to friendly units, but it can masquerade as harmless or friendly units.

As the technology matures and the weight comes down (I assume it will always be a power hog) the technology can be added to the next generation of military vehicles- not just tanks. helicopters and cargo trucks, tanks and IFV's. Add some sort of radar stealth to it and you suddenly have command vehicles that are invisible from the air as log as they practice good camouflage... Dynamic multi-spectrum camouflage is going to rewrite the books on mechanized warfare.

finally some good photos of J-20 2002

......