dark light

tphuang

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 969 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: China’s Leap in Unmanned Aircraft Development #2414802
    tphuang
    Participant

    I believed that China’s current UAV capability was primarily constrained by the lack of a suitably compact indigenous powerplant?. Has this now been addressed?. If not the ‘leap’ forward outlined is surely more of a ‘hop’?.

    it hasn’t been addressed. I’m not sure what leap means. The importance is that they have many firms working on UAVs right now and it’s really showing some fruits. But despite the lack of powerplant, they seem to have managed to come up with some acceptable designs.

    in reply to: PLAAF; News and Photos volume 13 #2415915
    tphuang
    Participant

    Any idea?

    http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Electronics/Airborne%20FCR/UnknownRADAR_3.jpg
    http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Electronics/Airborne%20FCR/UnknownRADAR_1a.jpg
    http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af8/My-Military-Photos/PRC/Electronics/Airborne%20FCR/UnknownRADAR_2a.jpg

    these have been on the 14th institute website for a while now. Crobato found them a while ago. A while ago, I asked someone about these pictures and he didn’t think they were for fighters, but for special mission aircrafts.

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2018998
    tphuang
    Participant

    Deck handling on top of a building – where every aircraft would have to be craned up there and where errors would be wasteful and potentially catastrophic?. Inefficient at best and potentially dangerous at worst. Easier, and no less effective, would be to mark out an area on an existing airbase, at ground level, and shunt aircraft round on that. Easier to store the airframes in existing hangars as well!. There is certainly no requirement for a full island mockup when all the deck crew have to do is avoid banging into the superstructure!.

    That makes a bit more sense but, again, you dont need to build a full mock up of the island do you?. All you need is an approximation of shape to plot out nulls, masking and hot spots. Also why make it a fixture on top of a building?. Where is the advantage in that to make the cost and awkwardness of doing it worthwhile?. Again why not the simpler expedient of dropping it onto a nice vacated space on an airbase where you can really jack the RF emissions up without microwaving some poor sod who happens to be wandering around the grounds of the building downstairs!

    Not really all that similar!.

    Strange puts it mildly. IF this is genuine someone has a very overactive imagination over there!

    At work, so i will try to keep this short. But this facility is 100% real. This is in the middle of the city Wuhan in China, and the facility itself is located inside the 701 Institute which is a major naval ship designer in China. Too many people have said they’ve seen this and too many circumstantial articles have come up for this to be fake. And I could be wrong on this, but I think they have numerous such facilities in Wuhan to test new electronics for the navy.

    in reply to: PLAAF; News and Photos volume 13 #2435003
    tphuang
    Participant

    pretty high claim to say that it’s made in Pakistan considering that even the Pakistani K-8s are made in China. But regardless, K-8 has been scoring a lot of hits recently.

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2024687
    tphuang
    Participant

    http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8600/varyagaug285.jpg
    One of the better photos on this, just waiting to see more pictures now.

    in reply to: PLAN Carrier Updates. #2025507
    tphuang
    Participant

    the word on Chinese bbs is that the island is being modified, but we haven’t seen any pictures showing that yet.

    in reply to: PLAAF; News and Photos volume 13 #2417760
    tphuang
    Participant

    Enter service already?

    have you followed pla so little that you don’t even know the prototype numbers for J-10.

    in reply to: PLAAF; News and Photos volume 13 #2435416
    tphuang
    Participant

    FC-20 M-MRCA Emerges

    The first single-seat FC-20 prototype was rolled out by CAC last December
    By Prasun K. Sengupta

    China’s Sichuan-based Chengdu Aerospace Corp (CAC) and its affiliated 611 Institute has begun a hectic but structured flight-test programme for the FC-20 medium multi-role combat aircraft (M-MRCA), whose launch export customer is the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). The PAF has an initial requirement for 36 single-seaters and four tandem-seat operational conversion trainers, and envisages a total requirement for 80 FC-20s distributed among four squadrons.

    The first single-seat FC-20 prototype was rolled out by CAC last December and it made its maiden flight last March. Derived from the CAC-built J-10A Vigorous Dragon M-MRCA, the FC-20 incorporates an under-nose modified lightweight air inlet, redesigned vertical tailfin, strengthened underwing inner pylons designed for carrying standoff precision-guided munitions (PGM) like the glide kit-equipped LS-6, nose-mounted infra-red search-and-track (IRST) system, a glass cockpit equipped with a holographic wide-angle heads-up display (HUD), a pair of inverted-gull wings (with the inner upper portion extending slightly downward, while the outer portion extending flat), a fixed in-flight refuelling probe, a large vertical tail, twin ventral stabilisers for providing greater stability at high angles of attack, and a single AL-31FN-M1 turbofan engine rated at 132.4kN thrust with afterburning. In August 2005 China had inked a USD 300 million contract with Russia’s Rosoboronexport State Corp to acquire initial 100 such engines. The entire R&D phase of the FC-20 is being carried out under the oversight of China’s state-owned China Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC).

    The FC-20 will be able to carry 4.5 tonnes of weapons payload, and will come equipped with 11 hardpoints for carrying a wide range of air combat missiles (both within-visual-range and beyond-visual-range) and PGMs. The FC-20’s performance parameters include a maximum combat radius of 2,540km (1,370nm) in a hi-lo-hi mission profile, or of 1,310km (710nm) in a lo-lo-lo mission profile when carrying a 1,810kg (4,000lb) weapons payload.

    The M-MRCA will have an empty weight of 9,750kg, maximum takeoff weight of 19,277kg, internal fuel capacity of 4,500kg, maximum speed of Mach 2 at high altitude and Mach 1.2 at sea level, takeoff run of 500 metres, combat radius of 1,100km, and a service ceiling of 18,000 metres. The FC-20 has a wingspan of 8.78 metres, overall length of 14.57 metres, height of 4.78 metres, and a gross wing area of 33.1 square metres. The airframe features high-quality welding, but is overwhelmingly of metallic construction, with composites accounting for only 12 per cent of the fuselage area.

    CAC and its affiliated 611 Institute are now preparing to roll-out a tandem-seat deep interdictor variant of the FC-20, which, like the single-seater, will be equipped with a laser target acquisition/designation pod, laser-/GPS-guided PGMs, as well as PL-9C within-visual-range and PL-12 beyond-visual-range air combat missiles built by the Luoyang Opto-Electro Technology Development Centre. Design of this variant of the FC-20 is derived from the J-10B operational conversion trainer that made its maiden flight on 26 December 2003.

    The FC-20’s tandem-seat variant will feature a stretched forward fuselage and a single-piece bubble canopy. Its dorsal spine will be enlarged to accommodate those avionics displaced by the rear cockpit. The PAF is widely expected to equip its FC-20s with the SELEX Galileo-built X-band Vixen 500E airborne active phased-array fire-control radar. The glass cockpit avionics suite will includes a wide-angle holographic HUD with up-front control panel and a video camera, twin monochrome AMLCD-based multifunction displays, a single colour AMLCD head-down display, infra-red sensors for a helmet-mounted sight, hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS) controls, ring-laser-gyro-based inertial navigation system, air data computer, ARW-9101A radar warning receiver, Type 634 digital quadruplex fly-by-wire flight control system using a MIL-STD-1553B digital data bus, and a digital fuel management system and stores management system.

    The FC-20’s compound delta-wing configuration will offer two important aerodynamic qualities. The swept leading edge of the wing will stay ahead of the shock-wave generated by the FC-20’s nose during supersonic flight, thus making the compound delta-wing a very efficient aerodynamic wing shape for supersonic flight. The leading edge of compound delta-wing will also generate a massive vortex that will attach itself to the upper surface of the wing during high angle-of-attack (AoA) manoeuvres, resulting in very high stall points.

    [Full Feature/Report]

    Has this guy ever written anything that has a hint of truth?
    The entire article is laughable in almost every way.

    in reply to: $290 million F-22 Raptors for Japan #2436316
    tphuang
    Participant

    The JASDF brass know about the Flanker threat from the PLAAF and the VVS, operating from Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, along with the DPRK’s missile threat. They have the right to protect their country with this state-of-the-art Gen 5 fighter.

    Two things, Flanker threat is overblown, F-35 would have no problem handling it. It would be able to handle any of the missions that you just mentioned.
    Second, I do agree F-22 would be a better option at this price, but you shouldn’t be using range as the reason.

    in reply to: $290 million F-22 Raptors for Japan #2436633
    tphuang
    Participant

    The JASDF would not want the F-35, because it does not have the longer legs of the F-22 Raptor and it has a single engine, less suitable for flying with wet feet, but it could be a replacement for their F-2s.

    And JASDF needs something with F-22’s range because they have a really large land mass to protect. Oh wait, they don’t. Maybe they need it for offensive operations. Oh wait, they got that thing called the constitution.

    290 million for F-22 is a bargain. Japan should just pay it with the treasury bonds :). Why would you need to smuggle $130 billion to Switzerland when you can buy 40 F-22s with 1/10 of that?

    in reply to: Taiwan to build new fighter with Russian help #2441916
    tphuang
    Participant

    I can’t believe people are still talking about this.

    There is not a chance this story is true. check the source of the original story. Was it from taipei times or one of the major Russian newspapers?

    Are you kidding me? This is the perfect riposte for J-11B and numerous other blatant rip-offs of Russian tech.
    Believe me, the Chinese need the Russians more than Russia-China.

    I don’t come on this forum often enough, so I’m not even going to bother arguing with this.

    Russian/China relationship is far more politically/economically important than militarily important. They have been meeting for the past week for BRIC and SCO and delivered a major communique, go read it. Russia specifically stated again that it’s position on Taiwan has not changed. And I would know this, because I’ve been freaking following their meetings all week and catching all of the news coming out.

    What Russia needs China for right now is far more significant than J-11B. They are talking about working together to change the foundation of the International monetary system. Stuff like buying each other’s gov’t bonds, moving money away from US treasury, establishing currency swaps and creating a new world currency are all going by the away side if Russia changes its stance on Taiwan or Tibet.

    Yak-STOVL makes the world of sense if this development is really intended to be a buttressing of Taiwanese military capability. However I suspect it isnt. I also suspect that PRC howling over Russia pouring lots of its advanced aerospace technology into a joint project with RoC may be strangely muted.

    Since J-11 how much access has China had to advanced Russian technology again?.

    Why is it that the US wont peddle its cutting edge military technology to Taiwan?. Answer is because they know full well that that technology will be back across the Taiwan Strait faster than it gets to Beijing from Israel!.

    Be interesting to see just how easily duped the Russians are on this one!.

    jonesy, com’on. You can’t possibly take this seriously. I’m wondering what is going on with everyone.

    I will just pm you about the Russian tech, since again, I don’t come here often enough to defend my military related stuff.

    in reply to: Gripen NG beats SU-35 in a2a #2458276
    tphuang
    Participant

    nothing more than promotion, under certain ROE, it may well be capable of that, but all this is just promotion.

    in reply to: PLAAF; News and Photos volume 13 #2458422
    tphuang
    Participant

    Does anyone know why only the KJ-200 uses or received the more moderne airframe + the 6-bladed props ??

    If they are – to be careful – at least positive in adding performance or safety … why not use it for the other High Two models too ?

    Deino

    cost is the only reason I can think of.

    in reply to: PLAAF; News and Photos volume 13 #2464099
    tphuang
    Participant

    KJ-200/Y-8W: By chenium & gordonblade @ CDF

    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Air/KJ-200/post-8-1243959199.jpg

    ==========

    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Air/KJ-200/post-47-1243984969.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Air/KJ-200/post-47-1243985010.jpg
    http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e338/Hyperwarp/Hobbies/Military/PRC/Air/KJ-200/post-47-1243984956.jpg

    The article that came with these photos is really informative. We find out that SAC has two separate assembly line right now for the high news series. One of which is doing exclusively category 2 platforms and the other one is doing exclusively category 3 platforms. One needs to remember that KJ-200 is the only one that uses Category 3. And it talks about category 3 line is really busy, which means there are a lot of orders of KJ-200 being filled right now. It looks like last year alone, they produced probably one regiment (4) KJ-200s. It’s in the same division as KJ-2000 right now (26th). And they are all of the newer platform style (with the modifications like two vertical stabilizers) that was developed to solve problems that caused the June 3rd crash. And we also find out that the total production of the high new series per year is 10, which is actually quite a bit. That’s 2 and half regiments of surveillance planes.

    btw, they are forming a new regiment Y-8 high new 4, which is the one similar to J-STARS.

    in reply to: Indian Air Forces – News & Discussion Part VI #2475795
    tphuang
    Participant

    The Phalcon is stated by the IAF to be superior to the KJ-2000 even considering the best case (for the KJ-2000) scenario.

    right, because IAF know the exact performance of KJ-2000, lol

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 969 total)