转自凤凰的一篇鬼子论坛的译文-合并贴太长不想爬楼

丝带J-20，国外论坛翻译，转发 <点击复制本贴地址，推荐给朋友>


首先是Bill Sweetman空间上的本人介绍，当然是业内专家。
他的看法可能比我们的一般专家贵宾要更有价值。

Bill Sweetman
Washington DC
About Me: Bill Sweetman is Editor in Chief of Defense Technology International.
My Company/Organization: Aviation Week Group
My Job Function: Editor in Chief
My Areas of Expertise: Defense Media
My Areas of Interest: Advanced technology, with emphasis on aeronautics  

姓名：Bill Sweetman
位置：华盛顿特区
简述：《国际防务科技》（DTI)主编
公司：《航空周刊》集团（业界大拿啊）
职务：主任编辑
专长：防务媒体
兴趣：航空方面的先进科技
以下正文
题目： How Not To Think About The J-20    如何才能不去顾忌J-20
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/30/2010 10:50 AM CST  

Now that the last few skeptics have been converted to the idea that the J-20 is a real airplane, and not the product of a network of Chinese teenage boys armed with Photoshop, the internetz are rife with speculation about the project's schedule, technology and capabilities.

Much of it is both premature and misguided, the result of several basic errors in analysis, politics and prejudice.

现在最后的几个怀疑者都已经转换口风相信J-20是真的了，而不是中国小屁孩用PS搞的网络产品。
整个互联网充斥着对该工程的进度，科技水平和性能的各种看法。
其中的大多数既不成熟，也不对头。这是在分析学，政治学和习惯偏见上的几个基本错误造成的。

The first mistake is "mirror imaging". The Tu-22M Backfire was not a B-1, but the USAF wanted it to be one, because they desperately wanted to resurrect the B-1. The MiG-25 looked like the air-superiority fighters that the USAF was sketching in the late 1960s, but it was nothing of the sort. And just because the front end of the J-20 looks like an F-22 does not mean that it is an F-22 clone.

第一个错误是“镜像思维”
TU-22逆火不是B-1，但是美国空军想要它是。因为他们拼命地想要B-1复兴。
MIG-25看起来和美国空军1960年代拟定的空优战斗机很像，可实际上根本不是一回事。
现在J-20仅仅是头部和F-22长得很像，这并不意味着这是F-22的克隆。

One problem with mirror-imaging is the unspoken assumption that the other guys face the same challenges that you do. But to take a couple of examples, the Russians in the Cold War never had to worry about a dense, layered surface-to-air missile threat and the US does not face an adversary with a significant carrier force.

和“镜像思维”一块的一个毛病是一种潜在的思维定式。总认为别人和你自己面对的挑战是一样的。
举几个反例：冷战时俄国人从来不担心密集林立，层层叠叠的地对空导弹威胁。而美国人也不会考虑去面对一个拥有强大航母军力的敌人。

A related source of error is an attempt to exploit the appearance of a new Chinese or Russian system to support a pre-existing belief system. That's why people who want more defense spending will upsell the threat, and predict that the new whatever-it-is will be operational next week and in production at a rate of 100 per year, and those on the other side will point to the adversary's primitive technology level, and argue that the new aircraft is merely an X-plane. The right answer usually lies between those points, but more importantly, it won't be found that way.

另一个相关的错误是把中国和俄国的新状况硬套进他们原来的旧信仰体系。
这是为什么那些希望增加国防预算的人们总想扩大这种威胁，并鼓吹这些新的张三李四会下个礼拜就能用了，还每年能造出100架。
而处在另一个极端的人会指出敌人的科技水平是如何如何原始，争辩说这些新飞机也就是个验证机。
而实际上，正确的答案往往就在以上两者中间。不过更重要的是，像他们这样是找不到正确答案的。

There's a healthy dose of cultural prejudice behind both errors. Mirror-imaging, in the Cold War and today, is supported by the idea that Communists are unimaginative bureaucrats who can't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag. We found out this wasn't true, on a massive scale, after 1991:  for instance, the combination of helmet-mounted sights and high off-boresight missiles sent the US scrambling to develop the AIM-9X, and US spy satellites fly on Energomash RD-180 engines.

对这两种错误后面的文化偏见，有一对症良药。
冷战时期和当前的“镜像思维”，都来自于一种观念，认为共产主义是毫无想象力的官僚主义，作茧自缚，无力创新。
实际上，1991年之后在方方面面我们都知道这种观念是错误的。
例如，头盔瞄准和高超视距导弹的结合导致美国争先恐后地研发AIM-9X，而且美国的间谍卫星居然用上了俄制Energomash的RD-180火箭发动机（世界最好的，效率最高的液体发动机，今年9月又卖了46台给美国）

China's military engineers and planners have unintentionally reinforced this image over the decades, preferring to upgrade Soviet-era systems rather than developing new platforms. But that tends to obscure the fact that (to take one example) the latest version of the HQ-2 surface-to-air missile bears only an external resemblance to the Soviet V-750.

中国的军事规划者和工程师们在过去的几十年内无意中增强了我们的这种错误观念。他们更倾向于升级苏联时代的系统，而不是开发新的平台。这更容易混淆事实。
举个例子，HQ-2地对空导弹的最新版本实际仅仅只有外观上像苏联 V-750了。

Since the current military modernization started, new weapons havev been increasingly innovative. The question of Israeli technical assistance notwithstanding, the J-10 does not resemble any other fighter, and the J-10B less so. In other domains, systems like the Type 022 fast missile boat resemble nothing anywhere else (and could that be one reason for the fast-paced ONR/DARPA LRASM program?).  

Next question:  what does the J-20 look like from a Chinese perspective? Watch this space.

由于当前的军事现代化发展，新的武器已经越来越有创新了。尽管仍然有以色列技术支持的疑问，J-10和任何其他战斗机都不相像，J-10B就更不一样了。在其它领域，像022导弹快艇这样的系统是独此一家，别无分号。（还有，这就是我们要加快ONR/DARPA LRASM 远程反舰导弹计划的一个原因么？）
下一个问题：中国人看来，J-20到底是什么样的呢？请继续关注本人空间
（Bill 在卖广告了，看来他最近对J-20是持续关注啊）
另一个感想：
国内会用F-20而不是J-20这样的称呼，非常在乎北约用什么代号来称呼我们的军品，做个图还要写上“Hello World”之类的英文。这是一种不自信的表现。说难听点，可能还有点想向老外炫耀（讨好）的意味。
我的名字叫“Yao Ming”，不是“Ming Yao”。我们中国人姓在前，名在后。
我们叫J-20，全世界就会跟着叫J-20。这些天看来看去，也就中国论坛上出现了“F-20”

大国有大国的风度，大国的自信。
我们学英文是为了跟上世界的步伐，终有一天，老外也会学中文来跟上我们的
我们要自己尊重自己。
尊重自己的传统，尊重自己辛勤劳动的成果
本帖最后由 shicaca 于 2010-12-31 22:13 编辑
以下对该博文的评论：
第一个评论就很有趣，大家先看着

1.  Obamanite wrote:
What's amazing is how literally no one is thinking and/or stating the obvious regarding the advent of PAK-FA and now this Chinese thingamabob. While it is a safe assumption that neither of these aircraft aircraft are properly VLO, they are almost certainly LO to one or another degree, certainly to a greater degree than an LO-treated platform such as the Superbug. This will certainly drastically reduce the detection and engagement envelopes of American and European radars and missiles, in some cases to close to WVR. And that means the following: in a potential conflict with one side equipped with PAK-FA or J-20, and the other with F-22 and/or F-35, there will be no such thing as BVR engagements. We will be back to the days of eyeball-to-eyeball, mano-a-mano, and the certainty of mutually assured destruction via HOBS engagements. That is, provided anyone sees anybody else, very quick and deadly dogfights for both sides. It also means strikers - in whose interest it is to remain unseen and to avoid engagements - will strike with near-impunity. In other words, people, massed formations, installations, bases, infrastructure WILL be bombed. The question is not whether they will be struck and damaged, but whether they will be totally destroyed. Airborne high-value assets will be toast: what kind of CAP, with what sort of astronomical numbers, will be needed to assure that no PAK-FA and/or J-20 leaks through to down an AWACS or J-STARS-type aircraft? In such a scenario, flying command posts will simply cease to be survivable. Add to that other surveillance platforms such as Global Hawk. Gone. Toast. Only stealthy, non-emitting platforms will live to see another day, but they will be largely useless as air-to-air platforms when everyone is flying around blind. Welcome to the equivalent of airborne submarine warfare, where no one knows where the other is until they are almost literally on top of each other, at which point luck will either dictate who lives, or more probably, both die. Area-defense systems will similarly be useless, and only point-defense systems will be at all effective at trying to eyeball and engage swarms of otherwise nearly undetectable stealthy glide bombs and such, trying to to pick off as many as possible but certainly not all nor even a majority. Nifty Pandora's Box of mutually assured destruction this whole stealth business has unleashed...
12/30/2010 12:48 PM CST
Recommend (9)  

让人奇怪的是，为什么没人好好考虑过PAK-FA和现在的中国东西所带来的，显而易见的结果。
可以肯定的是，这两种新飞机都不是完全隐身 (VLO) 的。他们基本上是某种程度上的隐身 (LO)，当然比隐身处理过 (LO-treated) 的现成平台要高级得多，比如超级虫子。
这必将完全降低在目视作战 (WVR) 前，西方雷达和导弹的搜索及交火窗口。
接下来就这样了：
交战双方一边有PAK-FA/J-20，另一边是F-22/F35，那就没有所谓的超视距 (BVR) 交火了。我们会回到当年的瞪着眼睛看，挥着胳膊打，通过大角度摆脱（HOBS High-Angle Off-Boresight）来相互锁定摧毁对方。
也就是说，等当双方都看到对方了，只能是短暂而致命的狗斗（Dogfight）了。
这同样意味着隐身状态下的攻击机会近乎毫发无损地发动攻击。
换句话说，各位父老乡亲们，大规模编队，集结，基地和基础设施*要*吃炸弹了。
现在问题已经不是他们将会怎样被攻击的，而是他们会不会被彻底摧毁。
空运的高价值物资会成为靶子；
这得要多少钱，多大的天文数字来确保没有PAK-FA或者（和）J-20透过我们的预警侦查系统 （AWACS/J-STARS) 溜进来？
这样的场景中，空中指挥中心很简单就无法生存了。其它监视平台也一样，比如全球鹰（Global Hawk)，没了，完蛋了。
只有隐形的静默平台会活到明天，但是作为空对空平台，各个都是抓瞎乱飞，会极大地失去作用。
欢迎参加空中潜水艇作战，没人知道别人在哪里，除非正好抬头看见。看谁运气好能活着，或者更可能是，双双嗝屁。
区域防空系统也没用了。只有点防空系统会有用，靠眼睛来应对铺天盖地的隐身滑翔炸弹。希望能尽可能地挡住一些，但肯定不能完全挡住，甚至只能挡住一小部分。
互相摧毁的隐形潘多拉盒子打开了......

2. Harrier wrote:
Well, the one thing I like most about the J-20 is the way it is painted black to look scary. Judging by Obamanite's comments, it has worked! The way the Chinese have controlled the release of recent pics, from super blurry to pin sharp, yet all from phones it seems, shows they know how to play this poker hand well.
12/30/2010 1:03 PM CST
Recommend (2)  

好吧，我最喜欢J-20的一点是她的黑色外皮看起来很吓人。根据楼上这位Obamanite的评论，真起作用了！
中国人逐步控制泄密的照片，从极不清楚到清晰锐利，还让它们看起来都是手机拍的。这种手段说明他们是此中高手，知道如何打好手上的牌。

3. Obamanite wrote:
Harrier, it would be foolish and dangerous to assume that neither the Chinese nor the Russians could at some future date, likely near-term, come up with a fairly advanced VLO design on a rough par with the F-22. The F-22's technology is already close to or more than 25 years-old. And one can only hope that our side has figured out a way to counter it because otherwise we're in deep doo-doo.
12/30/2010 1:12 PM CST

Harrier，如果认为中国或俄国在将来，或最近的将来，不能搞出相当高级的隐身飞机，能和F-22一较长短的话，真是又愚蠢，又危险。
F-22的科技已近是差不多25年前了。我们只能寄望于我方能找到反制的办法，否则就是大祸临头了。（in deep doo-doo，直译掉进大堆屎中，形容危机将至，无力应对）

4.  DMSO wrote:
It is in dark blue paint, not black. The weather of Chengdu is always foggy, for thousands of years. So it looks black on photos.

There are two prototypes, the other for static test.

It has a DSI combined with variable Caret inlet, nothing seen on other planes. Basically it has the most complicated aerodynamic features, owing probably in part to a less powerful engine compared to F22.

You still could call it a copy of whatever if you define a plane to have wings, fuel-sage, and engine.

Do not ask me questions. All the above from analysis available on Chinese websites.
12/30/2010 1:33 PM CST

那漆是深蓝色，不是黑色。成都总是有雾，千年如此。所以照片上看着是黑色。
有两架原型机，另一架用于静力测试。
她有DSI+可调Caret 进气口，从来没在别的飞机上出现过。基本上她拥有最复杂的气动特征，可能起因于弥补其引擎相比于F-22的推力不够。
如果你对飞机的定义只是有翅膀，有机身，用引擎的话，你还可以说她是XXX的复制品。
别问我问题。以上所有分析来自于中国网站。
（各位，老外眼睛睁得大大地在盯着我们呢。该说的说，不该说的请忍住。）


5. Harrier wrote:
Obamanite - I think it may be possible that the strategic purpose of the J-20 (and DF-21D missile etc.) is to make the US think a war with China would potentially end in deep doo-doo, and so to pursue 'alternative' policies. The Taiwan Straits Crisis back in the 1990s cut deep, I think.
12/30/2010 1:43 PM CST

Obamanite，可能J-20（还有DF-21D导弹等等）的战略意图是让美国顾忌和中国的战争会最终陷入 “deep doo-doo”，只能寻求替代政策。
我想台湾海峡的水会像1990年代那样搅得更浑了。

6. David Sullivan wrote:
The Chinese have no reason to deter anyone. No one would think of attacking them. This is an expression of nationalism and a source of power for the PLA generals. It may help sell Chinese engineering generally, weapons and Comac C919s to other countries. It may end up brining prestige to the Chinese automobile industry which is set to compete with the Europeans, Koreans and Japanese.

I don't think the U.S. is taking the possibility of war seriously. U.S. flag officers are busy getting money for their respective communities and the defense contractors who will employ them when they leave.
12/30/2010 2:10 PM CST


中国人不会干涉任何人。也不会受人欺负。这是民族主义者和一些实力派PLA将军的论调。
这会帮助向外国推销中国的科技，武器和商飞的C919之类东东。这可能还会最终提高中国汽车工业的信誉，这方面他们已经动手和欧洲，韩国和日本竞争了。
我不认为美国真的会考虑发动战争。美国军政大员们正忙给各自的社团，国防承包商送钱呢。这样离任后才会被他们雇佣啊。

(哎哟，骂得也挺厉害的，当官都不容易啊）

7.   jetcal1 wrote:
Welcome to the impending fighter gap. This aircraft even if unsuccessful is a big step for China.

Their engineers will learn from this project as the industry in China is growing while every where else it is contracting. This aircraft will provide industry wide tribal knowledge within China while with an average industry age of 50 our engineers are retiring.

As far as the powerplant goes, China has the rare metals and is developing the engineers. If they are willing to not worry about SFC or engine life their engine technology is probably good enough if they can produce the number of engines needed to sustain spares.

I can’t offer an opinion on coatings, avionics or sensor fusion.

I think if I was Taiwanese, I might seriously start considering production of WMD.
12/30/2010 2:14 PM CST


欢迎战斗机技术差距的缩小。这款飞机即使是不成功的，也是中国的一大进步。工程师们会从该工程中学到良多。
中国工业正在发展壮大，而其他国家却在衰退。这款飞机会提供给中国内部的工业领域广泛的系统知识。反过来，我们美国的工业工程师们平均年龄都50了，正在逐步退休中。
至于发动机方面，中国不缺稀土金属，也积极发展工程技术。如果他们不担心耗油量或寿命的话，他们的发动机技术没准已经够用了---只要配件跟得上。
我对涂层，航电和传感器方面提不出看法。
如果我是台湾人，我该认真考虑大杀器 (WMD)了
（比如核弹？这位真毒）


8. Slider wrote:
I read a report today that stated that the Chinese government want to be self sufficient in defence from 2015, from that point they aim not to need help from outsiders.
The J-20, prototype it may be, looks like a long range, high altitude semi stealthy interceptor which may fill a gap in capability in the PLA.
12/30/2010 4:57 PM CST

我今天看到报道说中国政府希望从2015开始国防工业能自给自足，不需要外来援助。
可能是原型机的J-20看起来像是远程高空准隐身截击机，这会填补PLA的能力空白。

9. AHP wrote:
There is no need to wonder why the PRC built this airplane. It is obvious - to project power. It is a normal and natural thing for a country to do. It is the biggest reason we, the USA, have carrier taskforces. Of course the USA have no plans to attack them. It is egotistical to think they are only doing this to counter the USA. If my memory of history is right they live in an occasionally pretty dangerous part of the world. It is also naive to think that a country that has come as far as the PRC has in the last 35 to 40 years could not produce a 4.5 to 4.75 generation stealth strike fighter. Especially the side views of the airplane in which one can see the helmeted pilot allows one to see how large this aircraft truly is. I don't mean to come back to my earlier posts but in the 50's and 60's we designed and built a similar size plane the F-111. Does any one doubt that the PRC given the time, money and effort could not build a similar aircraft with some stealth characteristics. Even if their engine designs/manufacture are not at a western level surely with the help of "friends" they can import or will come up with an approximation thereof. Of course there was probably some back engineering and probably some industrial espionage. So what about it. Which country doesn't engage in that kind of behavior from tome to time.
12/30/2010 6:30 PM CST
Recommend (9)  

无需怀疑为什么中国会造这样的飞机。很显然，就是为了投送火力。
对中国这样的国家，这是很自然也很正常的事情。
最大的原因是我们美国有航母舰队。（当然美国没有攻击他们的计划。）
不过如果说他们做这个只是为了反制美国，这也过于武断。
我的历史知识没错的话，他们一直生活在一个时不时就很危险的地区。
同样如果认为像中国这样的在过去35-40年取得如此大进步的国家，没能力制造4.5-4.75代隐身战机的话，也是很傻很天真的。
特别是这架飞机的侧视图可以看到飞行员的头盔，这能帮助估量这架飞机实际上是多么巨大。
（我的意思并非重复我先前帖子里的看法，以为这是类同于五六十年代我们设计的同样大小的F-111。）
以中国现在所有的时间，金钱和决心，还有人怀疑他们不能做出这样的具有隐身特性的飞机么？
即使发动机方面达不到西方标准，但是在“朋友”的帮助下，也能进口或者发展到近似程度的。当然还有逆向山寨和工业间谍呢。
不过那又如何呢？那个国家没这样干过呢。

10. meteor wrote:
Americans tend not to think outside the box, as was evidenced by our stunned reaction to 9-11. Imagine the following:

1. China tells the world they are going to "absorb" Taiwan peacefully, just as they did Hong Kong. The Taiwanese call on the USA for help. 2. The US federal budget is only 60% funded by internal revenue. The rest is covered by borrowing, much of it from China. China calls in the US debt. The US defaults, casting the US and world economies into chaos. Social Security, military payroll, etc, don't get paid out. 3. Cyber warfare of unknown origin takes out large portions of the US electrical grid and water supplies. The internet goes down, the stock market descends into chaos, airlines can't file flight plans. 4. US recce and comm satellites are hit by Chinese missiles. 5. Chinese special forces slip ashore onto Guam and Okinawa from passing freighters. They race across Andersen and Kadena AFBs throwing satchel charges at F-22s and E-3s and KC-10s. Aircraft arriving at those airfieds are hit by MANPADS from special forces in hiding. 6. Stealthy Chinese J-20s make a sweep across Taiwan and engage Taiwanese F-16s, destroying several, who never even see the J-20s.
7. The Chinese again announce that they are going to "absorb" Taiwan peacefully, just as they did Hong Kong.

The US faces a choice: Start a major war with China over Taiwan with significant damage to the Western world and an uncertain outcome, or gracefully find a way to let the Chinese do what they want without us losing too much face.

That's where the J-20 fits in.

美国人总是坐井观天，9-11后的惊恐表现就是证据。
想想下面的场景：
1. 中国声明要和平地“收回”台湾，就像收回香港那样。
   湾湾打电话给美帝求助

2. 美国联邦预算只有60%来自于国内税收。剩余部分来自借贷，大量来自中国。
   中国要兑现美国国债。
   美国赖账。导致美国和世界经济混乱。社会保险，军队薪水等等都无力支付。

3. 不明来源的网络攻击占领了美国很大部分的电力网络和引水供应。互联网瘫痪，股市崩盘，飞机不能起飞。

4. 美国侦察和通信卫星被中国导弹击毁。

5. 中国特种部队通过过往货轮，潜入关岛和冲绳海岸。
   他们冲入安德森和嘉守纳空军基地，向F22, E-3和KC-10扔炸药包。在这些机场降落的飞机被隐藏的特种部队用便携式防空武器击落。

6. 隐身的中国J-20横扫台湾，和湾湾的F-16交火。击落数架甚至都没看见J-20的F-16。

7. 中国人再次声明要和平地“收回”台湾，就像收回香港那样。
美国就面对一个难题：是为了台湾而向中国发动一场大规模战争，从而极大地伤害到西方世界，还带着不可知的后果；还是斯文地找个办法，让中国人做他们想做的，也不太丢自己的面子。
这就是J-20的作用。
（这段太红KC，看看就好）


11.  Talyn wrote:
The only similarities between the J-20 and the F-111 is that both have wings, twin engines and a fuselage. Comparisons with western designs is a moot argument.

China has well known territorial claims in the South China Sea and with Taiwan and Japan. A long-range/persistence fighter fits within Chinas'clear power projection needs.

China has the money, ability to copy foreign designs and features quickly, tens of thousands of western-educated engineers and an aggressive espionage program that has accellerated its military modernization program.

China knows what it wants and is going for it, regardless of the opinions of others. The chinese saying..."What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours"...is very clear in the roll-out of the J-20.
12/30/2010 9:24 PM CST

J-20和F-111唯一的相同之处就是都有翅膀，两个引擎加个机身。总拿西方设计来对比是没有意义的。
众所周知，中国在南中国海，台湾和日本都有领土争端。一种远程的能自持的战斗机是很符合中国的火力投送要求的。
中国有钱，也有能力去快速地拷贝国外的设计和特征。成千上万的有西方教育背景的工程师，侵略性的间谍系统加快了这一军事现代化工程。
中国知道自己想要什么，也正在出手，不顾忌别人的看法。
有句中国俗话“你的就是我的，我的还是我的”，随着J-20的出现表述得很明白了
（这好像是大富翁里面钱夫人的口头禅啊。越翻译，我越有危机感，靠）

12. NB wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Japan responds to the J-20. Will renewed pressure be applied to the American government to restart and export the F-22? Or, will Japan decide it has to proceed on its own, possibly with a southeast Asian partner?
12/30/2010 9:36 PM CST

我很好奇日本人对J-20是什么反应。
会重新要求美国政府恢复F-22的生产和出口么？或者日本决定进行自己的计划，没准再找个东南亚的合作伙伴？
（韩国就在做这个事情哦）

13. Scubafreak wrote:
Looking at the pics of the J-20 that have surfaced, I have to say that it SCREAMS MIG 1.44, with stolen American tech grafted in. What that means for it's performance is beyond me, but it does tend to point to Russian collaboration (or some really torqed off Russian aviation designers...)
12/30/2010 9:57 PM CST

看着J-20的照片，我不得不说这就是MIG 1.44，再嫁接上偷来的美国技术。
这表明其性能不如我们。但这的确说明有俄国的协作。（或者某些俄国的航空设计人员）

Hardcore wrote:
@Scubafreak; did you not read the Bill Sweetmans logg post? That something look like this, or that, doesn't mean they stole the plans nor hired the foreign engineers.
12/30/2010 11:02 PM CST


楼上的，你难道没有看Bill Sweetman的博文么？某些地方看起来像这个那个，不代表的飞机是偷来的，或者雇了外国工程师。丝带J-20，国外论坛翻译，转发 <点击复制本贴地址，推荐给朋友>


首先是Bill Sweetman空间上的本人介绍，当然是业内专家。
他的看法可能比我们的一般专家贵宾要更有价值。

Bill Sweetman
Washington DC
About Me: Bill Sweetman is Editor in Chief of Defense Technology International.
My Company/Organization: Aviation Week Group
My Job Function: Editor in Chief
My Areas of Expertise: Defense Media
My Areas of Interest: Advanced technology, with emphasis on aeronautics  

姓名：Bill Sweetman
位置：华盛顿特区
简述：《国际防务科技》（DTI)主编
公司：《航空周刊》集团（业界大拿啊）
职务：主任编辑
专长：防务媒体
兴趣：航空方面的先进科技
以下正文
题目： How Not To Think About The J-20    如何才能不去顾忌J-20
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 12/30/2010 10:50 AM CST  

Now that the last few skeptics have been converted to the idea that the J-20 is a real airplane, and not the product of a network of Chinese teenage boys armed with Photoshop, the internetz are rife with speculation about the project's schedule, technology and capabilities.

Much of it is both premature and misguided, the result of several basic errors in analysis, politics and prejudice.

现在最后的几个怀疑者都已经转换口风相信J-20是真的了，而不是中国小屁孩用PS搞的网络产品。
整个互联网充斥着对该工程的进度，科技水平和性能的各种看法。
其中的大多数既不成熟，也不对头。这是在分析学，政治学和习惯偏见上的几个基本错误造成的。

The first mistake is "mirror imaging". The Tu-22M Backfire was not a B-1, but the USAF wanted it to be one, because they desperately wanted to resurrect the B-1. The MiG-25 looked like the air-superiority fighters that the USAF was sketching in the late 1960s, but it was nothing of the sort. And just because the front end of the J-20 looks like an F-22 does not mean that it is an F-22 clone.

第一个错误是“镜像思维”
TU-22逆火不是B-1，但是美国空军想要它是。因为他们拼命地想要B-1复兴。
MIG-25看起来和美国空军1960年代拟定的空优战斗机很像，可实际上根本不是一回事。
现在J-20仅仅是头部和F-22长得很像，这并不意味着这是F-22的克隆。

One problem with mirror-imaging is the unspoken assumption that the other guys face the same challenges that you do. But to take a couple of examples, the Russians in the Cold War never had to worry about a dense, layered surface-to-air missile threat and the US does not face an adversary with a significant carrier force.

和“镜像思维”一块的一个毛病是一种潜在的思维定式。总认为别人和你自己面对的挑战是一样的。
举几个反例：冷战时俄国人从来不担心密集林立，层层叠叠的地对空导弹威胁。而美国人也不会考虑去面对一个拥有强大航母军力的敌人。

A related source of error is an attempt to exploit the appearance of a new Chinese or Russian system to support a pre-existing belief system. That's why people who want more defense spending will upsell the threat, and predict that the new whatever-it-is will be operational next week and in production at a rate of 100 per year, and those on the other side will point to the adversary's primitive technology level, and argue that the new aircraft is merely an X-plane. The right answer usually lies between those points, but more importantly, it won't be found that way.

另一个相关的错误是把中国和俄国的新状况硬套进他们原来的旧信仰体系。
这是为什么那些希望增加国防预算的人们总想扩大这种威胁，并鼓吹这些新的张三李四会下个礼拜就能用了，还每年能造出100架。
而处在另一个极端的人会指出敌人的科技水平是如何如何原始，争辩说这些新飞机也就是个验证机。
而实际上，正确的答案往往就在以上两者中间。不过更重要的是，像他们这样是找不到正确答案的。

There's a healthy dose of cultural prejudice behind both errors. Mirror-imaging, in the Cold War and today, is supported by the idea that Communists are unimaginative bureaucrats who can't innovate their way out of a wet paper bag. We found out this wasn't true, on a massive scale, after 1991:  for instance, the combination of helmet-mounted sights and high off-boresight missiles sent the US scrambling to develop the AIM-9X, and US spy satellites fly on Energomash RD-180 engines.

对这两种错误后面的文化偏见，有一对症良药。
冷战时期和当前的“镜像思维”，都来自于一种观念，认为共产主义是毫无想象力的官僚主义，作茧自缚，无力创新。
实际上，1991年之后在方方面面我们都知道这种观念是错误的。
例如，头盔瞄准和高超视距导弹的结合导致美国争先恐后地研发AIM-9X，而且美国的间谍卫星居然用上了俄制Energomash的RD-180火箭发动机（世界最好的，效率最高的液体发动机，今年9月又卖了46台给美国）

China's military engineers and planners have unintentionally reinforced this image over the decades, preferring to upgrade Soviet-era systems rather than developing new platforms. But that tends to obscure the fact that (to take one example) the latest version of the HQ-2 surface-to-air missile bears only an external resemblance to the Soviet V-750.

中国的军事规划者和工程师们在过去的几十年内无意中增强了我们的这种错误观念。他们更倾向于升级苏联时代的系统，而不是开发新的平台。这更容易混淆事实。
举个例子，HQ-2地对空导弹的最新版本实际仅仅只有外观上像苏联 V-750了。

Since the current military modernization started, new weapons havev been increasingly innovative. The question of Israeli technical assistance notwithstanding, the J-10 does not resemble any other fighter, and the J-10B less so. In other domains, systems like the Type 022 fast missile boat resemble nothing anywhere else (and could that be one reason for the fast-paced ONR/DARPA LRASM program?).  

Next question:  what does the J-20 look like from a Chinese perspective? Watch this space.

由于当前的军事现代化发展，新的武器已经越来越有创新了。尽管仍然有以色列技术支持的疑问，J-10和任何其他战斗机都不相像，J-10B就更不一样了。在其它领域，像022导弹快艇这样的系统是独此一家，别无分号。（还有，这就是我们要加快ONR/DARPA LRASM 远程反舰导弹计划的一个原因么？）
下一个问题：中国人看来，J-20到底是什么样的呢？请继续关注本人空间
（Bill 在卖广告了，看来他最近对J-20是持续关注啊）
另一个感想：
国内会用F-20而不是J-20这样的称呼，非常在乎北约用什么代号来称呼我们的军品，做个图还要写上“Hello World”之类的英文。这是一种不自信的表现。说难听点，可能还有点想向老外炫耀（讨好）的意味。
我的名字叫“Yao Ming”，不是“Ming Yao”。我们中国人姓在前，名在后。
我们叫J-20，全世界就会跟着叫J-20。这些天看来看去，也就中国论坛上出现了“F-20”

大国有大国的风度，大国的自信。
我们学英文是为了跟上世界的步伐，终有一天，老外也会学中文来跟上我们的
我们要自己尊重自己。
尊重自己的传统，尊重自己辛勤劳动的成果
本帖最后由 shicaca 于 2010-12-31 22:13 编辑
以下对该博文的评论：
第一个评论就很有趣，大家先看着

1.  Obamanite wrote:
What's amazing is how literally no one is thinking and/or stating the obvious regarding the advent of PAK-FA and now this Chinese thingamabob. While it is a safe assumption that neither of these aircraft aircraft are properly VLO, they are almost certainly LO to one or another degree, certainly to a greater degree than an LO-treated platform such as the Superbug. This will certainly drastically reduce the detection and engagement envelopes of American and European radars and missiles, in some cases to close to WVR. And that means the following: in a potential conflict with one side equipped with PAK-FA or J-20, and the other with F-22 and/or F-35, there will be no such thing as BVR engagements. We will be back to the days of eyeball-to-eyeball, mano-a-mano, and the certainty of mutually assured destruction via HOBS engagements. That is, provided anyone sees anybody else, very quick and deadly dogfights for both sides. It also means strikers - in whose interest it is to remain unseen and to avoid engagements - will strike with near-impunity. In other words, people, massed formations, installations, bases, infrastructure WILL be bombed. The question is not whether they will be struck and damaged, but whether they will be totally destroyed. Airborne high-value assets will be toast: what kind of CAP, with what sort of astronomical numbers, will be needed to assure that no PAK-FA and/or J-20 leaks through to down an AWACS or J-STARS-type aircraft? In such a scenario, flying command posts will simply cease to be survivable. Add to that other surveillance platforms such as Global Hawk. Gone. Toast. Only stealthy, non-emitting platforms will live to see another day, but they will be largely useless as air-to-air platforms when everyone is flying around blind. Welcome to the equivalent of airborne submarine warfare, where no one knows where the other is until they are almost literally on top of each other, at which point luck will either dictate who lives, or more probably, both die. Area-defense systems will similarly be useless, and only point-defense systems will be at all effective at trying to eyeball and engage swarms of otherwise nearly undetectable stealthy glide bombs and such, trying to to pick off as many as possible but certainly not all nor even a majority. Nifty Pandora's Box of mutually assured destruction this whole stealth business has unleashed...
12/30/2010 12:48 PM CST
Recommend (9)  

让人奇怪的是，为什么没人好好考虑过PAK-FA和现在的中国东西所带来的，显而易见的结果。
可以肯定的是，这两种新飞机都不是完全隐身 (VLO) 的。他们基本上是某种程度上的隐身 (LO)，当然比隐身处理过 (LO-treated) 的现成平台要高级得多，比如超级虫子。
这必将完全降低在目视作战 (WVR) 前，西方雷达和导弹的搜索及交火窗口。
接下来就这样了：
交战双方一边有PAK-FA/J-20，另一边是F-22/F35，那就没有所谓的超视距 (BVR) 交火了。我们会回到当年的瞪着眼睛看，挥着胳膊打，通过大角度摆脱（HOBS High-Angle Off-Boresight）来相互锁定摧毁对方。
也就是说，等当双方都看到对方了，只能是短暂而致命的狗斗（Dogfight）了。
这同样意味着隐身状态下的攻击机会近乎毫发无损地发动攻击。
换句话说，各位父老乡亲们，大规模编队，集结，基地和基础设施*要*吃炸弹了。
现在问题已经不是他们将会怎样被攻击的，而是他们会不会被彻底摧毁。
空运的高价值物资会成为靶子；
这得要多少钱，多大的天文数字来确保没有PAK-FA或者（和）J-20透过我们的预警侦查系统 （AWACS/J-STARS) 溜进来？
这样的场景中，空中指挥中心很简单就无法生存了。其它监视平台也一样，比如全球鹰（Global Hawk)，没了，完蛋了。
只有隐形的静默平台会活到明天，但是作为空对空平台，各个都是抓瞎乱飞，会极大地失去作用。
欢迎参加空中潜水艇作战，没人知道别人在哪里，除非正好抬头看见。看谁运气好能活着，或者更可能是，双双嗝屁。
区域防空系统也没用了。只有点防空系统会有用，靠眼睛来应对铺天盖地的隐身滑翔炸弹。希望能尽可能地挡住一些，但肯定不能完全挡住，甚至只能挡住一小部分。
互相摧毁的隐形潘多拉盒子打开了......

2. Harrier wrote:
Well, the one thing I like most about the J-20 is the way it is painted black to look scary. Judging by Obamanite's comments, it has worked! The way the Chinese have controlled the release of recent pics, from super blurry to pin sharp, yet all from phones it seems, shows they know how to play this poker hand well.
12/30/2010 1:03 PM CST
Recommend (2)  

好吧，我最喜欢J-20的一点是她的黑色外皮看起来很吓人。根据楼上这位Obamanite的评论，真起作用了！
中国人逐步控制泄密的照片，从极不清楚到清晰锐利，还让它们看起来都是手机拍的。这种手段说明他们是此中高手，知道如何打好手上的牌。

3. Obamanite wrote:
Harrier, it would be foolish and dangerous to assume that neither the Chinese nor the Russians could at some future date, likely near-term, come up with a fairly advanced VLO design on a rough par with the F-22. The F-22's technology is already close to or more than 25 years-old. And one can only hope that our side has figured out a way to counter it because otherwise we're in deep doo-doo.
12/30/2010 1:12 PM CST

Harrier，如果认为中国或俄国在将来，或最近的将来，不能搞出相当高级的隐身飞机，能和F-22一较长短的话，真是又愚蠢，又危险。
F-22的科技已近是差不多25年前了。我们只能寄望于我方能找到反制的办法，否则就是大祸临头了。（in deep doo-doo，直译掉进大堆屎中，形容危机将至，无力应对）

4.  DMSO wrote:
It is in dark blue paint, not black. The weather of Chengdu is always foggy, for thousands of years. So it looks black on photos.

There are two prototypes, the other for static test.

It has a DSI combined with variable Caret inlet, nothing seen on other planes. Basically it has the most complicated aerodynamic features, owing probably in part to a less powerful engine compared to F22.

You still could call it a copy of whatever if you define a plane to have wings, fuel-sage, and engine.

Do not ask me questions. All the above from analysis available on Chinese websites.
12/30/2010 1:33 PM CST

那漆是深蓝色，不是黑色。成都总是有雾，千年如此。所以照片上看着是黑色。
有两架原型机，另一架用于静力测试。
她有DSI+可调Caret 进气口，从来没在别的飞机上出现过。基本上她拥有最复杂的气动特征，可能起因于弥补其引擎相比于F-22的推力不够。
如果你对飞机的定义只是有翅膀，有机身，用引擎的话，你还可以说她是XXX的复制品。
别问我问题。以上所有分析来自于中国网站。
（各位，老外眼睛睁得大大地在盯着我们呢。该说的说，不该说的请忍住。）


5. Harrier wrote:
Obamanite - I think it may be possible that the strategic purpose of the J-20 (and DF-21D missile etc.) is to make the US think a war with China would potentially end in deep doo-doo, and so to pursue 'alternative' policies. The Taiwan Straits Crisis back in the 1990s cut deep, I think.
12/30/2010 1:43 PM CST

Obamanite，可能J-20（还有DF-21D导弹等等）的战略意图是让美国顾忌和中国的战争会最终陷入 “deep doo-doo”，只能寻求替代政策。
我想台湾海峡的水会像1990年代那样搅得更浑了。

6. David Sullivan wrote:
The Chinese have no reason to deter anyone. No one would think of attacking them. This is an expression of nationalism and a source of power for the PLA generals. It may help sell Chinese engineering generally, weapons and Comac C919s to other countries. It may end up brining prestige to the Chinese automobile industry which is set to compete with the Europeans, Koreans and Japanese.

I don't think the U.S. is taking the possibility of war seriously. U.S. flag officers are busy getting money for their respective communities and the defense contractors who will employ them when they leave.
12/30/2010 2:10 PM CST


中国人不会干涉任何人。也不会受人欺负。这是民族主义者和一些实力派PLA将军的论调。
这会帮助向外国推销中国的科技，武器和商飞的C919之类东东。这可能还会最终提高中国汽车工业的信誉，这方面他们已经动手和欧洲，韩国和日本竞争了。
我不认为美国真的会考虑发动战争。美国军政大员们正忙给各自的社团，国防承包商送钱呢。这样离任后才会被他们雇佣啊。

(哎哟，骂得也挺厉害的，当官都不容易啊）

7.   jetcal1 wrote:
Welcome to the impending fighter gap. This aircraft even if unsuccessful is a big step for China.

Their engineers will learn from this project as the industry in China is growing while every where else it is contracting. This aircraft will provide industry wide tribal knowledge within China while with an average industry age of 50 our engineers are retiring.

As far as the powerplant goes, China has the rare metals and is developing the engineers. If they are willing to not worry about SFC or engine life their engine technology is probably good enough if they can produce the number of engines needed to sustain spares.

I can’t offer an opinion on coatings, avionics or sensor fusion.

I think if I was Taiwanese, I might seriously start considering production of WMD.
12/30/2010 2:14 PM CST


欢迎战斗机技术差距的缩小。这款飞机即使是不成功的，也是中国的一大进步。工程师们会从该工程中学到良多。
中国工业正在发展壮大，而其他国家却在衰退。这款飞机会提供给中国内部的工业领域广泛的系统知识。反过来，我们美国的工业工程师们平均年龄都50了，正在逐步退休中。
至于发动机方面，中国不缺稀土金属，也积极发展工程技术。如果他们不担心耗油量或寿命的话，他们的发动机技术没准已经够用了---只要配件跟得上。
我对涂层，航电和传感器方面提不出看法。
如果我是台湾人，我该认真考虑大杀器 (WMD)了
（比如核弹？这位真毒）


8. Slider wrote:
I read a report today that stated that the Chinese government want to be self sufficient in defence from 2015, from that point they aim not to need help from outsiders.
The J-20, prototype it may be, looks like a long range, high altitude semi stealthy interceptor which may fill a gap in capability in the PLA.
12/30/2010 4:57 PM CST

我今天看到报道说中国政府希望从2015开始国防工业能自给自足，不需要外来援助。
可能是原型机的J-20看起来像是远程高空准隐身截击机，这会填补PLA的能力空白。

9. AHP wrote:
There is no need to wonder why the PRC built this airplane. It is obvious - to project power. It is a normal and natural thing for a country to do. It is the biggest reason we, the USA, have carrier taskforces. Of course the USA have no plans to attack them. It is egotistical to think they are only doing this to counter the USA. If my memory of history is right they live in an occasionally pretty dangerous part of the world. It is also naive to think that a country that has come as far as the PRC has in the last 35 to 40 years could not produce a 4.5 to 4.75 generation stealth strike fighter. Especially the side views of the airplane in which one can see the helmeted pilot allows one to see how large this aircraft truly is. I don't mean to come back to my earlier posts but in the 50's and 60's we designed and built a similar size plane the F-111. Does any one doubt that the PRC given the time, money and effort could not build a similar aircraft with some stealth characteristics. Even if their engine designs/manufacture are not at a western level surely with the help of "friends" they can import or will come up with an approximation thereof. Of course there was probably some back engineering and probably some industrial espionage. So what about it. Which country doesn't engage in that kind of behavior from tome to time.
12/30/2010 6:30 PM CST
Recommend (9)  

无需怀疑为什么中国会造这样的飞机。很显然，就是为了投送火力。
对中国这样的国家，这是很自然也很正常的事情。
最大的原因是我们美国有航母舰队。（当然美国没有攻击他们的计划。）
不过如果说他们做这个只是为了反制美国，这也过于武断。
我的历史知识没错的话，他们一直生活在一个时不时就很危险的地区。
同样如果认为像中国这样的在过去35-40年取得如此大进步的国家，没能力制造4.5-4.75代隐身战机的话，也是很傻很天真的。
特别是这架飞机的侧视图可以看到飞行员的头盔，这能帮助估量这架飞机实际上是多么巨大。
（我的意思并非重复我先前帖子里的看法，以为这是类同于五六十年代我们设计的同样大小的F-111。）
以中国现在所有的时间，金钱和决心，还有人怀疑他们不能做出这样的具有隐身特性的飞机么？
即使发动机方面达不到西方标准，但是在“朋友”的帮助下，也能进口或者发展到近似程度的。当然还有逆向山寨和工业间谍呢。
不过那又如何呢？那个国家没这样干过呢。

10. meteor wrote:
Americans tend not to think outside the box, as was evidenced by our stunned reaction to 9-11. Imagine the following:

1. China tells the world they are going to "absorb" Taiwan peacefully, just as they did Hong Kong. The Taiwanese call on the USA for help. 2. The US federal budget is only 60% funded by internal revenue. The rest is covered by borrowing, much of it from China. China calls in the US debt. The US defaults, casting the US and world economies into chaos. Social Security, military payroll, etc, don't get paid out. 3. Cyber warfare of unknown origin takes out large portions of the US electrical grid and water supplies. The internet goes down, the stock market descends into chaos, airlines can't file flight plans. 4. US recce and comm satellites are hit by Chinese missiles. 5. Chinese special forces slip ashore onto Guam and Okinawa from passing freighters. They race across Andersen and Kadena AFBs throwing satchel charges at F-22s and E-3s and KC-10s. Aircraft arriving at those airfieds are hit by MANPADS from special forces in hiding. 6. Stealthy Chinese J-20s make a sweep across Taiwan and engage Taiwanese F-16s, destroying several, who never even see the J-20s.
7. The Chinese again announce that they are going to "absorb" Taiwan peacefully, just as they did Hong Kong.

The US faces a choice: Start a major war with China over Taiwan with significant damage to the Western world and an uncertain outcome, or gracefully find a way to let the Chinese do what they want without us losing too much face.

That's where the J-20 fits in.

美国人总是坐井观天，9-11后的惊恐表现就是证据。
想想下面的场景：
1. 中国声明要和平地“收回”台湾，就像收回香港那样。
   湾湾打电话给美帝求助

2. 美国联邦预算只有60%来自于国内税收。剩余部分来自借贷，大量来自中国。
   中国要兑现美国国债。
   美国赖账。导致美国和世界经济混乱。社会保险，军队薪水等等都无力支付。

3. 不明来源的网络攻击占领了美国很大部分的电力网络和引水供应。互联网瘫痪，股市崩盘，飞机不能起飞。

4. 美国侦察和通信卫星被中国导弹击毁。

5. 中国特种部队通过过往货轮，潜入关岛和冲绳海岸。
   他们冲入安德森和嘉守纳空军基地，向F22, E-3和KC-10扔炸药包。在这些机场降落的飞机被隐藏的特种部队用便携式防空武器击落。

6. 隐身的中国J-20横扫台湾，和湾湾的F-16交火。击落数架甚至都没看见J-20的F-16。

7. 中国人再次声明要和平地“收回”台湾，就像收回香港那样。
美国就面对一个难题：是为了台湾而向中国发动一场大规模战争，从而极大地伤害到西方世界，还带着不可知的后果；还是斯文地找个办法，让中国人做他们想做的，也不太丢自己的面子。
这就是J-20的作用。
（这段太红KC，看看就好）


11.  Talyn wrote:
The only similarities between the J-20 and the F-111 is that both have wings, twin engines and a fuselage. Comparisons with western designs is a moot argument.

China has well known territorial claims in the South China Sea and with Taiwan and Japan. A long-range/persistence fighter fits within Chinas'clear power projection needs.

China has the money, ability to copy foreign designs and features quickly, tens of thousands of western-educated engineers and an aggressive espionage program that has accellerated its military modernization program.

China knows what it wants and is going for it, regardless of the opinions of others. The chinese saying..."What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours"...is very clear in the roll-out of the J-20.
12/30/2010 9:24 PM CST

J-20和F-111唯一的相同之处就是都有翅膀，两个引擎加个机身。总拿西方设计来对比是没有意义的。
众所周知，中国在南中国海，台湾和日本都有领土争端。一种远程的能自持的战斗机是很符合中国的火力投送要求的。
中国有钱，也有能力去快速地拷贝国外的设计和特征。成千上万的有西方教育背景的工程师，侵略性的间谍系统加快了这一军事现代化工程。
中国知道自己想要什么，也正在出手，不顾忌别人的看法。
有句中国俗话“你的就是我的，我的还是我的”，随着J-20的出现表述得很明白了
（这好像是大富翁里面钱夫人的口头禅啊。越翻译，我越有危机感，靠）

12. NB wrote:
It will be interesting to see how Japan responds to the J-20. Will renewed pressure be applied to the American government to restart and export the F-22? Or, will Japan decide it has to proceed on its own, possibly with a southeast Asian partner?
12/30/2010 9:36 PM CST

我很好奇日本人对J-20是什么反应。
会重新要求美国政府恢复F-22的生产和出口么？或者日本决定进行自己的计划，没准再找个东南亚的合作伙伴？
（韩国就在做这个事情哦）

13. Scubafreak wrote:
Looking at the pics of the J-20 that have surfaced, I have to say that it SCREAMS MIG 1.44, with stolen American tech grafted in. What that means for it's performance is beyond me, but it does tend to point to Russian collaboration (or some really torqed off Russian aviation designers...)
12/30/2010 9:57 PM CST

看着J-20的照片，我不得不说这就是MIG 1.44，再嫁接上偷来的美国技术。
这表明其性能不如我们。但这的确说明有俄国的协作。（或者某些俄国的航空设计人员）

Hardcore wrote:
@Scubafreak; did you not read the Bill Sweetmans logg post? That something look like this, or that, doesn't mean they stole the plans nor hired the foreign engineers.
12/30/2010 11:02 PM CST


楼上的，你难道没有看Bill Sweetman的博文么？某些地方看起来像这个那个，不代表的飞机是偷来的，或者雇了外国工程师。