plawolfinteresting CG displayed at Scene China Co. Ltd at the China International Multimedia Technology and Application Expo in Shanghai. could be an indication of what the J10’s cockpit might look like.
plawolfthe latest AFM mag said that dissimilar air combat training took place between two JDFAF F2s and two USAF F16s (one single seater and one twin seater each). does anyone have any more info on how it went?
plawolfWhy not very well? I think China should have something comparable. What else is that Laser shown for except to shoot down SOMETHING.
most likely used for communications or anti-personnel. it would take a little beam like that quite some time to burn through an artillery shell, meaning that after you find a shell and aim and fire at it, you will most likely not be able to destroy it before it hits its target.
plawolfIIRC, datalink, used to recieved in-flight course adjustments from the launch platform until the missle’s own radar can get a lock on the target for terminal guidence.
plawolfstill doesnt make sence.
according to the article, “Under the new defense plans, to be drawn up under the new National Defense Program Outline, the agency also intends to shift from the current three-model fighter system–the F-15, F-4, and F-2–to a two-model system.”
they are going to retire the F4 and discountinue F2 purchases, but that still leaves the 86~96 F2s that will still be bought, together with the F15s, thats already two models. of with these two models, the F15 is mostly AA while the F2 focuses on AG, seems like a decent combo, why would they need another type in the interum? they surely arent going to retire the F2s, and the F15s should be able to last until the F-X or JSF becomes an option.
plawolfmost 3rd and 4th gen fighters have TWR greater then 1, the likes of the F15, F16, Mig29 (the basic verson certainly, not sure about the newer SMTs etc), Su27, J10, typhoon, rafale etc.
the design team behind the typhoon seems to think that with TWR above 1.2, any further increases arent that important, as the prototype typhoon had a TWR of around 1.6, but the production verson had its TWR dropped to around 1.2.
plawolfthat was my first thought as well, but the nose still looks a little out of step. feels like it should be a little bit longer.
plawolfthat FC-1 looks funny to me, especially the nose, almost looks like a PS.
plawolf168 hull is angeled somewhat but no to the extent of lafayette also the sheet metal for the superstructure just seem to pop up and doesnt seem to smoothly incoporated into design.
It reduces the RCS somewhat making it somewhat easiar to decoy missiles away with EW/ECM . Clean design helps for the crew to operate = efficency, it also helps with damage control.
question should what is definition of stealth feature? because there is lot more to stealth than just design with small rcs, u also need to worry bout heat and noise. These days every single navy seem to be building vessels with small rcs even many coast gaurd cutters have angeled superstructure and everthing but the question is how many vessels out there are indeed stealthy in all aspects.
well your question on what is the defination of stealth features seems to sum up all the differences we have. all the points you make about the 168’s design not being stealthy is based on you thinking that it is not as stealthy as the lafayette, but since when has the lafayette because the benchmark to stealth?
in my view, if a ship’s design can help to reduce its RCS more then purely symbolic in that it can give the ship an advantage in real life situations, then i would class the design as stealth/stealthy.
plawolfthey are not supposed to be stealthy in first place they are supposed to be clean design as opposed to 054 ffg if u notice the superstructure for both ddgs is not angeled at all how is it gonna reflect any radar waves unless china some sort of radar cancellation or RAM coating on it? Just because a vessel has clean layout doesnt make them stealth I have seen a lot civilian vessels that have hulls similar to this doesnt exactly mean those vessels are stealthy.
please! go and look at the pics of 168 again and find one surface that is perpendicular to the water that isnt a missile launchrail or blastshield for the missile launchrail.
just think about it, what is the point in making a warship’s structure clean without meaning it to be stealthy? commerical cruise ships want to look nice to attract passengers, but what does a warship have to gain from a clean structure besides stleath?
also, if what you say is true, then one warship from china doesnt have stealth features at all, but another warship built in china a few months later has stealth features? what does that mean? that china has suddenly made a quantum leap in stealthy ship design in a couple of months?
plawolfFC-1 is a post about China and her achievements. Pakistan is a sidebar in this topic…. a consumer. China as a producer.
Stop pretending to be Chinese, you are Pakistani so whats up with a name like PLA ? You don’t need to be that embarassed you are pakistani.
now i regret spending so much time in my last post! cut these childish personal attack will you? 😡
so what if he is pakistani? he was talking about china wasnt he? if the nationality of the posters is an issue and that only chinese are ‘allowed’ to post regarding a chinese topic, then why are you here?
plawolfGoldenDragon,
Making over 12,000 units of crap and selling to the least desirable markets really does not mean much.You are overstating the Chinese ability in aerospace. Its nowhere near an aerospace anything. Their first original products are military like the J-10 (Lavi lookalike) and FC-1 (nothing leading edge here).
ok, so according to you, everything china makes is ‘crap’? :rolleyes: guess that explains how in your eyes, china’s ‘first’ original aviation products became the J10 and FC-1.
Indians aren’t claiming that Indian aerospace is globally competitve in depths of products today. It is not.
When the Chinese premier flys around in Chinese designed passenger aircraft, like Putin flys around in a Illuysin, or the Europeans fly in their Airbus, or the Americans in the Boeings – then talk.
and since when has anyone here argued that china’s aerospace is comparable to that of the US and europe and russia? it has been stated from the offset that china’s aviation industry targets a very specific part of the world aviation market, and is generally not in direct competition with the US or europe or russia,mainly because chinese products arent good enough. however, compared with the rest of the world, china’s accomplishments are still exceptional.
chinese products might not be state-of-the-art, but at least they are chinese. how many nations besides the established ‘big boys’ of the other 4 P5 members can design and make a complete airplane without having to resort to seeking help in the design or in the supply of critical components from one of the ‘big boys’?
Too much photoshop for now. Unless there are tight intellectual property protections in China, first tier R&D will be nonexistant – multinationals will be glad to send an old production line, but not the good stuff. China will have a very difficult time transforming itself into a knowledge based economy from its workshop economy.
Thats why Japan and Korea are powerhouses in product innovation and research in Asia. Thats why India – with its very strong intellectual property protection is rapidly becoming a global perfered center for knowledge based industries…
China has a lot of potential no doubt, but a lot of fundamental barriers before its anything like the US or Japan.
please, that is a poor way to try to twist things to try to support your point.
sure, rampent piracy is a major problem for china, and will be a major inhibitor to growth and development in the future if left unanswered, but that is no way related to the aviation industry.
how much does it cost, and how long does it take to develop aviation products? you cant just buy a jet (which very few companies can afford to do anyways), take it apart and use the ‘paste’ and ‘copy’ keys to start making your own versons. as such, piracy is no real problem within the avaition industry – there are only a handfull of companies that can ‘pirate’ existing products, but none can be bothered to do so, as they can design their own products. well this is true of the commerical sector at least, where the bulk of ‘first tier’ R&D takes place.
there is the issue of rival companies trying to steal data on each other’s newest developments, but then that problem is not unique to china.
in the aerospace sector, china is quite some way ahead of the likes of Japan, SK and india. this is due to a lack of will to invest enough resources in the aerospace sector by the above mentioned nations as much as anything else, but regardless of how the gap appeared, it is there, and china is unlikely to relinequish its lead, just the same as the US and Europe are trying to keep their edge against china (thats one of the main reasons why they arent allowing their newest and best technologies to go to china). as such i dont see japan or SK or india catching up to china in the aerospace sector anytime soon.
plawolfthe front looks like it was borrowed from the su34.
plawolfthere’s another important point that wasnt meantioned, and that is that the author has observed that prototype 01 has now also had a proper radome (and so presumably also radar) installed instead of the old metal radome that doesnt allow the instalation of a radar in the nose.
plawolfThey did meet in combat, although this is constantly ignored in most, if not all, aviation publications (including a recent one in AFM). Both during the Ogaden War in 1977 between Ethiopia and Somalia, and during the Iran/Iraq War did the F-5 and MiG-21 meet each other on opposing sides.
hmm, its not like AFM to make a mistake like that. do you have any more info on these engagements?
Sign In
