plawolfwhats the point?
plawolfcool, cheers for the pic.
looks a little big though, maybe thats why they are not intergrating into onto the J10 and FC1 just yet – want to design a more compact verson to save on space and weight.
plawolfcheers for the link GD, dont have much time ATM, but will try and do a breif summery of the important points when i have some more free time. 😉
plawolf:rolleyes:
plawolfGD, do you have a link to the original chinese verson? Babelfished really gets on my nerves sometimes. 🙁
cheers.
plawolfi think the camo would look better and be more effective if they used a light grey for the radom, like they done with the JH7s.
plawolf😮
Re: stop whining
I am not whining, Wolf. What I am doing, merely, is to try and change
the mental state of mind of the Chinese public such that they may concentrate their
energy and efforts more on the future rather than in their glorious past.I mean has any of you ever come across a Jacky Chan, Jet Li, or a
Ang Lee production, “regardless if it’s a product from LA or one’s from the far east,”
that deals with anything else others than Kungfu and martial arts???I mean where is the energy and imagination as those of Steven Spielberg and of Tom Clancy
which IMO had charted and changed the course of American/western frame of mind in science??? Gouching Tigers
and Enter the Dragons are definitely not the themes that’ll do it my opinion. It’s simply jurassic???What China needs to instill in her people, particularly
in those of her youths is imagination, creativity, and the future, and not in the
day dreams and the yearning of her glorious and mighty past.I mean assigning a name i.e., Swift Warrior or Sleek Arrow (international themes)
to a machine designed to defend would definitely appeal more to the public than, for example the name
:p “Dragon Ball” :p (Any of you seen that stupid Japanese toon???) my opinion.My opinion only of course and end of discussion.
only someone who has little real understanding of china would get so caught up with a few names and come up with all this ridiculus and baseless analysis.
so what if china uses a few mythical creatures as the basis for naming some weapons? are the likes of AGIS, Gripen, Phalanxs, Phantom, seawolf based on real creatures? :rolleyes:
hell, what is the point of naming weapons systems at all? what is the point of painting wings and eyes and teeth on ac? it is just supersticious mumbo-jumbo, and if you do some research, it was actually the west that started to this trend.
in the olden days, the russians and chinese were contempt to give their creations simple but ‘boring’ designations such as T34, T98, Mig29, Su27, J8 etc. it was the west that gave them names, and the russians and chinese had to accept what the west gave them as they had no names of their own to call these weapons. that is probably why the russians and chinese have started to name their newer creations – better to do it yourself then to have someone do it for you.
so there is zero basis for your ‘cultural ‘analysis.
whats more funny is how you managed to twist a few crappy, yes crappy, oriental action films into a representation of an entire culture, are any hollywood pure actions films that strong on plot, story or acting? crowching tiger was only hot in the west, it flopped in china. draw your own conculsions from that. :rolleyes:
as for chinese youth, if anything, films about the ‘glourious past’, (which are few anyways, most chinese action films are set in the not so distant past when chinese have little to feel good about) serve as motivation to work harder to rebuild what was lost.
the only real basis for your arguments is that you, personally dont like the names the chinese have chosen, because they arent ‘westernised’ enough for you liking, and frankly, that says more about you then china.
plawolfSuper-7 is already an extremely resourcefull name. It carries
with it a very enterprising theme — one which have an air of commercialization
to it which is ideal for the international defensive needs market.And Thunder??? Well… it’s OK. But, I’d prefer
it more if it’s compunded. I.e., Thunderchief, Thunderbolt, Thunderstreak,
Thunderstrike, whatever. My opinion only of course.
well, no disprespect, but the people who design that plane will name it whatever they see fit, and dont give a crap about what you or i think of it, so stop whining about it.
plawolf:rolleyes:
Imagine the RCAF calling the Hornet the
CF-18 Ogopogo, or the CF-18 Flying Ogopogo, or the CF-18 Fighting
Ogopogo, or the CF-18 Fierce Ogopogo :rolleyes: ???Hey! I’m not criticizing here. I’m merely trying to take advantage
of the net and hopefully maybe bring a message across the Pacific to the people inside the PRC
so that they may become a wee more creative in name selections!!!I hope my message does across
the Pacific and make it’s way into the headquarters
of the Chengdu Design Beareau.😡
the names the chinese gave to their products have substance and meaning in chinese, hell they even sound cool. unfortuately much of that is lost in translation. its works the other way too, many western names are meaningless and seems like nothing more then a collection of words after being translated into chinese.
like i said before, china doesnt have to, nor want to give their products names that make sense to westerners but sound stupid to chinese.
and besides, who buys a multi-million fighter just because it sounds ‘cooler’ then another? :rolleyes:
if worst comes to worst, they can always rename the thing like the PAF have done with their F7s and FC1/JF17s.
edited for clarity
plawolfwhy electric shock? dont you like lethal injections or the old classics of hanging, shooting, beheading and stoning?
as for a last meal, well i’d have some crabs. ummmmmmmm…
plawolfWhen you are launching a missile at a moving target you don’t aim at the target, you try to calculate where the target will be by the time the missile gets there and you fly the missile to that point. As you track the movements of the target you adjust the position of the intercept point and manouver you missile to compensate. A very high speed target will generally not be manouvering very much anyway especially at low altitudes.
well that is right, but in the second vid, the target was moving in a straight line, apparently without changes in speed either, hence making it an easier target.
however, the ‘fear’ that the Tor might not perform so well against a target doing high-g monovers is somewhat eliviated by the first vid, which showed the Tor successfully hit a manovering target.
The donut problem is even more important in the sense that if you try to aim for a particular part of the target then you need a very high resolution radar image of the target. Unless you are using MMW radar the radar reflection of the target will not look much like the actual target at all and the front or middle or rear might not actually be a physical part of the aircraft.
well the AIM9X used thermal imaging, which produced a very impressive picture of the target. the Tor is radar guided, and that is also another reason why i was uncovinced about the missile aiming for a particular point of the target such as the cockpit.
plawolfA very high speed target (which I think is what was supposed to be simulated here) is a high speed target, whether it has a real warhead or not. I would suggest that in a real life situation the problem would be easier as the warhead on a real target would ensure there wasn’t much left structurally still heading toward the target. The Tor is radar guided… using radar guidance the missile will almost always aim for the radar centre of the target unless programmed otherwise. The main problem there is that depending upon the angle of attack the radar centre of an object is not necesarily inside the object. Think of a donut shape with a hol in the middle. Its cg is in the empty space in the hole in the middle. If it was radar reflecting then its radar centre would be in a similar place. 9 times out of ten it is the proximity fuse that detonates the warhead of the missile rather than a direct hit so the risk of a miss is removed but the risk of not hitting the target with enough fragments to destroy it is introduced.
in ‘real life conditions’ i was thinking more of the target doing evasive manovers and dropping chaff and flares. in which case aiming to hit the front of the target (ie actually aim the missile or its fragments a little in front of the target alone the course you think it will travel in) might not be such as good idea.
the ‘donut’ kill box is irrelevent here, as the centre of the ‘donut’ will be aimed at the area of the target you pre-programme the missile to hit. so if you wanted to hit the front of an ac, the center of the ‘donut’ will be aimed at the front, in which case a significant part of the ‘donut’ may not actually be on the target ac. thats why i think aiming for the centre is better, most of the ‘donut’ will be on the target, so even if the missile misses the centre for whatever reason, there is an increased change that fragments will hit the target itself. even if that is not enough to kill the target, it would damage it, meaning that plane will be on the ground for a few days at least.
It would depend upon where it hit it. For a 10-15kg warhead to spin an aircraft weighting as much as an F-4 suggests that it was probably the removal of a wing rather than the impact of the blast that spun the aircraft. An imaging Infra red guided missile that may have physically touched the target before detonation is going to do more damage than a proximity fused radar guided missile. Of course both will likely kill the target so the difference is academic.
well several F4s were involved in the tests with hits in various parts of the plane. one memerable hit was a direct impact in the engine compartment, which literally tore the plane into peices. in face, not that i think of it, none of the hits took any significantly larger parts of the wing off the F4s, yet in most cases they went into a violent spin very shortly after being hit.
however, i think you hit the nail on the head with your common on proximity fuse v direct hit. the AIM9X was dsigned to hit the target full-blooded. and i suspect the fact that all of the AIM9X’s warhead exploded inside the target ac, the extra momentum of the missile itself hitting the target and the probablity that the AIM9X’s warhead would be pure HE while the Tor’s is HE-FRAG together, is the most likely cause of the difference in target behaviour after being hit.
plawolfHey I just expressed an opinion. You can’t really read it, I was guessing.
calm down mate. 😉 i was just wondering where the ’11’ came from, since i could bairly make out that there were two digits.
plawolfThat also makes sense, because I have never heard of radar homing air to surface weapons…
what about the AH64Ds with their radar homing hellfires?
plawolf“11”? I don’t know why. Maybe it means “10” plus one.
how can you tell its ’11’? all i can make out is that there are two digits. 01 would seem more likely, and fits with previous reports.
Sign In
