tphuangWell the regular Su-27’s radar can detect a 3 m^2 target fron 100 miles away, so this 0.1-0.5 m^2 is believable.
you might want to check your sources on N-001. I wouldn’t trust any of these Russian brochure figures.
tphuangFlight range of 1500KM is possible with 5200/4000KG external load as it can do 3000KM in Air to Air role.
try telling that to plaaf officers. they will laugh at you.
A2A role, exactly. how is 2 R-73 and 2 R-27 4000 kg of external load?
The corresponding figures for Tejas were quoted by members at Bharat Rakshak forum after attending the Aero India 2007 air show. The figure is fighter configuration (presumably 3000 kgs) at 1000 kms.
Fighter configuration for a fighter of LCA’s size to me means 3 external fuel tank + 2 MRAAM + 2 SRAAM. At least, that’s what they refer to for J-10 and JF-17.
tphuangAs pointed out earlier, the range-payload figure of Su-30 MKI is 5270 kgs at 1,500 km and that for the Tejas is 3000 kgs at ~1000 kms. As was mentioned, there is no distinguishable “
there is not a chance a su-30 can carry 5270 kg for a range of 1500 km. Even su-34 can’t achieve anywhere close to that.
tphuangTVC is a key to rapid nose pointing at other than corner speed.
Corner speed is where the aerodynamic control surface pitch control power is able to slew the nose around a corner the fastest without exceeding the aircraft structural G limit (i.e. it is the speed where maximum ITR/STR occurs).
Adding TVC increases pitch control power at speeds slower than corner speed, allowing faster rates of nose pointing than is possible using only aerodynamic control surfaces.
Nose pointing is used to put weapons on target during WVR combat, something that becomes less important when HOB missiles are used.
Besides, TVC-enabled maneuvers makes a wonderful airshow display.
exactly, 5th generation SRAAMs + HMD negates quite a bit of the advantages of TVC.
tphuangJust a little side note on the FM engine series, it can be fitted with a 3D TVC nozzle of the same sort used by the RD-33 on the Mig-29OVT. To the best of my knowledge this option has yet to be taken up by anyone but it is certainly an interesting option/development.
in my opinion, TVC is a little overrated. I think China has pretty much not taken up that option due to the additional weight and cost issues. The higher thrust and service life of FM series are definitely good selling points tho.
tphuangI guess the statement that an F-15E has substantially more strike radius than a F-18F with comparable warload is based largely on hearsay. Why do people consider the F-15E as so extremely long range?
The known transonic drag problem of the Super Hornet (which is the reason for some poor performance parameters) does not really have an effect for strike mission radius.
Given the fact that Australia operates Hornets it would be stupid to order 24 aircraft of a totally different type that is actually less advanced than the legacey Hornets they already have.
check the combat radius of SH under different configurations and then check that of Eagle, huge difference.
tphuangsome interesting pictures from recent times with UAVs and KD-88.
tphuangmatt, actually Tejas’ max. payload is around 4,500 kgs as compared to 7,000 kgs of the F-16. But in A2A and ECM capability the Tejas should be equivalent to the F-16.
However, F-16 class fighters rarely have ANY mission profile that allows them to carry loads beyond 2000-3000 kgs. The Tejas can also carry these loads with ease at combat radii equal to F-16 or F-18, given that its airframe is very light and strong owing to composites.
you have to check the combat radii and what condition they are measured under. Just checking the combat radius at the basic specs area is not going to tell you what you need. You are not going to know the combat radius of Tejas until you test it out carrying 2 R-77s and R-73s + external fuel tank. so, don’t make such generalized statements.
tphuangsealordlawrence and sferrin, as the boldened quote by ISRO official shows, the ASAT test was nothing different than launching a rocket into a predetermined orbit to avoid collisions with sats of other nations. Only in the Chinese case, the orbit was occupied, which led to collision.
it was not only guided but also had a KKV, which allowed it to catch and destroy a satellite travelling at over 7000 m/s. can you should an unguided rocket to a fixed target 100 km away and hit it?
tphuangwell the sukhois already have datalinks because of which they are a pain in the wazoo to other fighters they tangle with in iaf exercises. they routinely share info for passive intercepts.
aesa has already been talked about by niip to india, you’re right.
even tho’ its hush hush on both sides and will come about probably midway through the mki production.all discussions apart, the mmrca wont be scrapped now, its a done thing. its taken a life of its own now and who knows which aircraft will be selected?!
why not NIIR? They seem to be further along in AESA than NIIP.
yeah, all flankers have datalink.
tphuangIn terms of aerodynamic,I think H-6K cannot be compare to Tu-22m3.
Tu-22M3 is a Mach 2 supersonic fast fire and run cruise missile carrier while H-6K is just a stand off cruise missile carrier…As for avionics, no comment. 😀
H-6K can certainly launch a lot more advanced weapons than Tu-22M3 can if they got it from the Russians (reason being MTCR restrictions). I can’t imagine 70s Russian avionics being better than what H-6K has right now. If China moves forward to a next generation bomber, it should certainly go B-2 route survivability than the backfire route.
tphuangOh no, Pearl Harbor coming your way! 😮 🙂
Watch out SOC, don’t let these drop their goodies on your head 😀
My apologies if my comment offends you 😀According to the “Fenghuang Tower” (translation error?) the H-8 is reported to start trial flights from January 5th. The Chinese leadership including the Central Military Committee officers, air force logistics department officer, national defense science and industry committee, Xi’an deputy mayor, the provincial party committee assistant deputy secretary, amongst others were present for inaugurating the project.
The H-8 is a secret strategic bomber, is the first stealth plane for China. The report said that, in 1994 officially set up a development to match the American B-2A as far as possible. The weapons load is targeted around 18 tons. When necessity, the bomber may travel at 1.2 Mach to penetrate defended territory or in case it needs to escape….
sorry, but that report is just some bad internet rumour.
tphuangwhen did PLAAF tests on IRBIS occur?
remember that JDW article on china and Irbis? It was all over the Chinese thread earlier this year.
tphuangNot AESA and 400km vs. a 3m² target is the official figure, not a random quote from the press.
from PLAAF tests, it does not achieve that figure at all. But then again, Russians do advertise a lot of stuff.
tphuangChina has not the capability to make a clone of the Lavi till today and none claimed the China did so even before. The infos related to that, were used by China to create something similar and to save time about some related technology. That is what all serious sources do claim and what did bother the USA. Even the Tu-4 was never a 100% clone of the B-29, despite Stalin did order. Even he had to accept that no money of the world can give the SU the expertise and related technology in short notice. That exercise to come as close as possible to the B-29 technology did rise the capabilities of the SU aviation industry to a new level and did save many years of time by that. Some elements and knowledge of that days is still to find in a Tu-160 f.e. The main benefit was, that the Russian aviation industry had to work to standards not in need during WW2. All the related sientific work and data were “presented” on a silver dish. Such an aircraft consisted of several thousands parts built to tested specifications and do present the work of several years of hard work related to that. The sience and secrets are, how do that interact and what small divergations do have in consequences. As Schorsch give the example about Chinese cars and the lack of knowledge about crash-behavior. Such things can not be copied and you are in need of hard data and related production technology. Another example you can find in the Formula 1 and the case between Ferrari and MacLaren/Mercedes. A data disc of an engineer did cost $ 100 Mio. in the end. There is some reason for that. Next thing you have to know, what kind of maschinery, tools a.s.o. is in need to produce something in a given quality. Just the “simple” information, where to buy that is not easy. You are still in need of the info from an experienced user, that it had lived up to the exspectations related to that before. Otherwise you can threw a lot of money out of your window and learn it the hard way through mishaps related to that.
Not going into all details in a lengthy way. It is just an impression, what technology transfer for a system like a fighter can be.
Are you serious? What does this other rant against Chinese products have anything to do with J-10?
Fact is that J-10 originated from the J-9 project (which was also carried out by CAC). All the physical differences have already been stated. Calling it a Lavi clone is simply irresponsible at this point.
The FC-1 or the Ching Kuo are similar by that to avoid other examples. The USA are still intrested to learn, who leaked some F-16 elements to China. Israel and Pakistan are suspected for that. Both did share or still do a relationship, when it comes to related technology.
which F-16 elements are you talking about? I’m curious. Or are you just continuing the stereotype by Western “experts” who never seemed to have looked more than two pictures of J-10.
Crobato why you have to do tantrums and rants and talk about cattle waste to feel you are right? Even in Taiwan the say the J-10 is a Lavi clone
what do they know in Taiwan? They still think the mkks are their biggest threats, when mkk is way down in plaaf hierarchy.
In exercises any thing can be setup. But in real war it is different matter.
Ground radar can be jammed and destroyed? Ground radar is bigger and more powerful and is more capable if they are of same generation. just because US has been successful in jamming some third world countries radar it does not mean two equal adversaries will face the same situation.
ur just assuming stuff without knowledge to back it up. Taiwan knew even in 1997 that J-10 is Lavi when there is no reported flight. and they were asking form AIM-120 to counter R-27. they knew MICA does not have the range.
the air combats between J-10 and flankers were simulated to be as realistic as possible, with no favourites (reasons have been given on why, people just can’t accept that SAC regards flankers as their own baby now).
Taiwan made a comment in 1997, right, J-10 hadn’t even flown back then. What would they know other than a wild guess?
and Flanker can turn on afterburner to go into high speed and altitude into the fight. once u lose fuel tanks u cannot get back them. Flanker can turn off the afterburner
J-10 was designed to have better supersonic performance than flankers. It can go mach 2.0 even with normal A2A configuration. Flankers can’t do that.
Sign In
