plawolfLooks like someone just did a pick-n-mix of three or four different fighters. You have the F22’s tail second attached to the F16’s midsection and wings, with the front of the F18 and the intake of the J10, with canrads added in since they are the ‘in’ thing right now. Its pretty much the same with the two-tone blue one, only it has the F18’s tailsection and Eurofighter intakes.
plawolfActually, the likes of the Me262 and Volksstrum, while revolutionary in design, did not have a huge impact in combat because of the various quirks and bugs that kept t5hem from reaching their full potential, much like the earliest AAMs in fact.
I think the most revolutionary fighter would have to be the F117 even though it is a bomber in all but name. The stealth technology introduced in the F117 was so ahead of its time that only now is it possible to economically employ it in maintream fighter aircraft, and being stealthy is the asperation, no, requirement of all future fighter aircraft and will likely remain so in the forseeable future. Rarely if ever has a concept been so universally approved and accepted. The F22 is the latest embodiment of the ideal of stealth, but being the first to employ it operationally and in doing so proving its worth beyound all doubt, the F117 takes my vote.
plawolfSo the missiles are stacked in two rows of four, and the bin extends down into the chassis of the vehicle. So the bin must rotate with the turret, and the lower half of the bin which is in the chassis, must rotate in some sort of circular mounting? Complicated….and not a whole lot of shots available, how long does it take to reload? I saw a picture of them reloading a stack of four, it doesn’t look fast. Are there special purpose vehicles for reloading and carrying spare rounds?
The turret, like any tank turret, has a large connection ring linking the turret to the chassis. That ring is large enough to fit the missiles in, so all that is needed is for the missile racks be to attached to the turret and nothing else is needed to allow the turret to turn freely. The number of missiles that can be carried is almost certainly to have been partically decided by the size of the connection ring of the GM-569 tracked vehicle whos chassis the Tor uses.
As for reloading, yes, there are special reloading vehicals.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/surfacetoairmissile/showimage.asp?imagename=torm1_04large
But you need to remember that Tors never operate alone, but in batteries with 4 TVLs. More important targets could be protected by several batteries or even entire battalions of 3-5 batteries each. Considering Tors are short range point defence missiles, 32 x 3-5 should be more then enough to protect a target against all but the most determined of saturation attacks.
Regarding moving the engagement radar, well that thing isn’t small, and you also need the tracking radar, both on the turret would take up a lot of space and could easily interfer with each other. Had the Russians wanted to, they could have designed a brand new chassis to handle 12, 16 or more missiles, but it was cheaper to adapt an existing chassis for the role, and as meantioned before, batteries of Tors should have more then enough missiles. Besides, having more missiles in a single TVL raises the cost of each vehical and also likely reduces the number of TVLs per battery, which is not good for battlefield surviverability and system redundency.
plawolfi wonder if anyone will attempt to climb up to the pedestal and attempt to do accurate measurements on that thing since last I’ve seen, people were still in disagreement over its size.
Waiting a while for new google earth pictures of the AVIC I headquarters building would be far easier and safer as such a picture would include many everyday items like cars and the like, which can be used as a point of reference to measure the plane. But that also seem like a waste of effort as it can only be a matter of time until offical stats are released for it.
plawolfSOC:
I would think that this is increasingly the case now. If Pakistan pushed really hard for the PLAAF to take an equal number of JF17s, and if relations with Taiwan did not greatly improve as it had recently, JF17s in the PLAAF/PLANAF could still have been a very real possibility.
But with the PAF pretty much committed to the JF17 no matter what, and the threat of war in the strait all but removed, there is just no longer the political or pratical need for the JF17 anymore. Purhaps as compensation for recending on its earlier promise to also equip JF17s, Pakistan might have gotten the green light to buy J10s, which is a far better deal for all concerned.
Although, if the BaYi display team does get J10s, then the chances of them going to RIAT or any other international airshow outside China or maybe Russia would be a lot less then if they had JF17s.
plawolfDisplays can also attract more talent and used as selling points (to an extent…if you could afford) or simply showing off your achievement, and J-10 fits the first and third point to say the least.
All valid points. But I feel that the JF17 can do all the above just as well. Also, with the JF17, there would be less security concerns for the team to travel and perform abroad. Something that might pose a problem with J10s.
plawolfDidn’t they get the J7E five years ago?
Considering high G force we expect from a display team then wouldn’t you say the plane could be on the list to be replaced??
That still feels pretty short. How often do the likes of the Blue Angels, Red Devils and Russian Knights change planes? They have been using the same type for yonks, but how often are the individual planes replaced?
Anyways, when it comes time to replace the J7Es, I still feel the JF17 would be a better choice. Of course, that is assuming the PLAAF or PLANAF ever orders any, as getting the type (and the logistical tail) just for a display team would be silly.
The JF17 would be ideal, but if the PLA don’t take JF17s, then J10s look like the only option, though that still feels like a bit of a waste of a very capable platform.
plawolfThere are pictures of the gate guardian in the PLAAF speculation thread. I’m not too such about the Ba-Yi (August 1st) display team getting J10s. J10s seem way too new and valuable to be used as such and besides, the Ba-Yi only just got their custom J7Es a few years back so it just seems a little too soon to replace them.
It certainly is a possibility as the J7E is not the most sexy of machines and might not give the impression of modernarity the higher-ups want for the games. But a far more sensible thing to do would be to equip them with JF17s, as that will be much cheaper, the plane looks pretty modern and cool, the team would be helping to market China’s flagship export fighter and could push the plane to show its fully capacities and go displaying abroad without too many security concerns.
plawolfSo the WS-10A is neither powerful & reliable enough for J-10 (chinese chief test pilot’s words), but it’s ok for J-11?
The J11 is twin engined while the J10 is single engined. With two engines, you have a greater margin for error, whereas planes will start falling out of the sky if their sole engine packs up suddenly. Besides, there is also internal politics and production capacity factors that make the J10 reliant on Al31s.
A pirated planar-array ‘Zhuk’ from the early 90s shoe-horned onto the J-11 is close in capability to the Irbis-E?
And of course you have evidence that the J11B uses a ‘pirated Zhuk’. :rolleyes:
Iirc, Jane’s reported some years ago that MiG was heavily involved in china’s next-gen. fighter with heavy 1.42 input, time will tell- no doubt.
Oh, why is TsAGI contractually working on 2 chinese fighters if china’s industry is so advanced. I mean, by now they should be well versed on prince charlie’s CFD packages right?
The Russians like to claim responsiblily for every successful Chinese weapons system. If you beleive everything internet media says, you would think everything from the 052C DDGs to the Yuan SSKs to the panda are Russian influenced. :rolleyes:
Besides, bringing in outside expertise is by no means the same as not having the ability yourself. Even the F35 uses Russian consultants to help with the engine nozzles. Does that mean they can’t make it without Russian help? Only insecure idiots would rather waste millions and years re-inventing the wheel when you can buy the tech you need ‘off the shelf’.
J-11 is closer to ’27SM, not even the same league as ’35BM, the closest capability analogy I would make is like comparing an F-18C to the Super Hornet.
And that is based on nothing more then biased prejudice and unsupported wishful thinking if your posts are any indication of how you came to that conclusion.
plawolfDo you have data about that? Otherwise that are contradicting claims most of the time. To use some composite in some places may shed a few percent in weight at best, but do not bolster life of the airframe in general. Treating the intakes to reduce RCS will rise weight for sure, when the effect of that is limited due to the layout. To ease the temper, the Su-35BM do face the same problems.
What are those slightly more powerful and reliable engines?
The engines of the Su-35BM are quoted with 14500 kp in overspeed mode, when normal max AB is ~14000 kp f.e.. 😉
I remember reading an article on one of the forums that one of the main gripes the PLAAF had with the SK was of its short airframe life, and that the J11B had made significant improvements in that department (10,000 hours). Had a quick look but can’t find that article just now, will keep an eye out and post it when I find it again.
The engines are WS10A, which is slightly more powerful, but has a 1,500 hour max time before overhaul, which is about double of the early AL31F. Thats more reliable in my book, as it can safely operate for much longer without needing to be overhauled.
As for the Su35’s engines, well there is no doubt that they are far better then anything China can produce at the moment. Engine tech is one of the areas where Russian remains far ahead of China.
plawolfCan a chinese rip-off of a MiG 1.44 be classed as 5G?….it’s Lavi all over again!
You’re right, it is like the Lavi all over again, where people make baseless assumptions and claim a Chinese plane is a rip-off of something else with zero evidence. :rolleyes:
The J11B has substantial structual improvements over the original flanker, reducing the weight, added slightly more powerful and reliable engines, vastly increase the life of the airframe and also treated the intakes to reduce RCS. That with all the avoinics upgrades makes it almost a different plane to the Su27SK.
The main area where China is lagging is engines, not radar, where the difference is not that great and reducing rapidly.
plawolfI seriously doubt China would be foolish enough to test one of these missiles at sea. The trails could be done just as effectively in land, and such tests could be quite easily disguised to look like any other ballistic missile tests.
The only time Beijing conducts weapons tests in the spotlight is when they want to send a message. And with warming relations between the straits right now, no such message would be furthcoming anytime soon.
Besides, anti-shipping ballistic missiles would be all but useless without the comprehansive search, tracking and targeting systems needed to support them, and to be useful against carriers, only space based systems would be truely effective. Thats not what your average state can easily afford, rouge or otherwise.
plawolf100 seems way too large a number considering what Singapore already have, and the regional situation concerning its neighbours. My guess is that the 100 planes, if its real, will be the max possible buy. The eventual deal will most likely be a few dozen bought with the rest as options.
plawolfIf I had said something like that, I would be lynched by Vikas & others. 🙂
Give it some time. :rolleyes:
Thus far, the debat has been remarkably well mannered and civilised. There are majorly different points of view, but everyone has been presenting their views in a mature and reasonable fashion until now. I was hoping we as a forum might have turned a corner, but I was also wondering how long it will be until someone came in to flame. I can only hope others have the sense to ignore the baiting for what it is and not lower themselves into a flame war and have this thread locked.
plawolfI disagree that it makes little sense to have put the SD-10 on the PAFs F-7s if they had the ability to do so. In one fell move, the PAF would have neutralised one of the IAF’s key A2A advantages. But like I said, w/current limitations, its useless.
No, it makes perfect sense, and its also called good planning. The Bison might have made sense to the IAF in the 90s because the bulk of their main potential opponent AF does not have BVR, so having BVR, even a limited one, is a material advantage.
But for the PAF and PLAAF its not the same equation. The PLAAF is faced with the ROCAF and potentially the USN, whose entire main fighter fleet has true BVR. So a limited BVR platform would be no better then a non-BVR platform, and that is why they have never pursued the idea of putting BVR on a J7 – the limitations of the airframe means that it is impossible to allow the plane to compete in the BVR field against true BVR fighters like M2K, F16s, IDF and F18s etc. This is especially true since the PLAAF have far more potent options like the J11, J10 and J9(JF17) that they could buy instead.
This is pretty much the same case with the PAF. When they bought the PGs, the IAF already had MKIs, Mig29s and M2K, with more MKIs, LCAs and more on the way. Against those, even a Bison would have no chance in BVR, so why bother with a Bison-like upgrade that actually changes nothing but costs you millions per plane that could be better spent buying more F16s, JF17s and maybe even J10s who would have a far better chance against the new gen IAF mainstay?
The PGs were meant to be a stop-gap to keep the numbers from getting too unbalanced until the PAF can get their high-end jets in any number, but the PAF have been so impressed with the performance of the PGs that they ordered more, and thats saying something.
Sign In
