FedaykinStar49 I really don’t understand you.
Why do you take any development or independent decision by China as such an insult?
China has every right to spend its money and develop a space program as well as move forward with indigenous aircraft.
In the defence arena it makes utter sense to develop their own fighter aircraft in the form of the J-10 the shear size of their defence replacement program dictates that. That China has used western and Russian technology for this shows a pragmatic streak by the local aviation industry, why reinvent the wheel?
As for the civil sector China wants thousands of civil airliners, getting licence production for the A320 makes sense its very succesful. Its a popular type and Airbus can make a far more attractive partnership offer then the makers of the TU204. In the end whilst the TU204 isn’t bad it is in effect a Russian Boeing 757 with a very small user base. The IL96 underperforms in comparison to Airbus and Boeing types, I wouldn’t regard it as an attractive type for local production.
Finally Star49 I have some advice:
Please Please Please! can you stop using the “Quote” option for every single line of someones post you don’t like! Reading your posts are enough to give anyone a headache:confused: You don’t need to rebuke every point line by line. Its difficult to follow and frankly after a while I don’t bother reading your posts. I’m sure you have a good point to make but it gets swamped under the single line quotes. What you need to do is use one block quote at the beginning of you post so we know who’s post your talking about then write one or two paragraphs clearly to explain your point.
Also can you stop google searching random news reports to proove you point it drags the thread away from the main issue as we start having to read obscure news items about machine tools!
Believe me if you made those changes I think people would give you far more respect here which is something you seem to crave.
OK 😀
Fedaykin
FedaykinAP WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Air Force has conceded it chose the more expensive option in awarding a $35 billion contract for refueling tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman Corp. instead of Boeing Co., Boeing said Thursday.
Although the Air Force said it cannot legally comment on the tanker proposals, the evaluation process or its selection, Northrop confirmed that the Air Force has found that the Boeing tanker proposal included cheaper life-cycle costs.
Boeing’s disclosure is the Chicago-based company’s latest attempt to show that the Air Force’s award to European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. – parent company of its rival Airbus – and Northrop was unfair. The company’s claims were detailed in documents filed as part of its protest of the contract to the Government Accountability Office and were made public just days before the GAO is set to issue its ruling.
Although the Air Force is not bound by the GAO decision, any finding of error with the competition is certain to give ammunition to Boeing’s supporters in Congress as they seek to block or overturn it.
“We have been saying for months now that errors had to be present in this contract award,” said Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Kansas Republican who represents a district where Boeing would do much of its tanker work. “This is strong evidence that the tanker contract should be re-competed.”
The new information appears to undermine the Air Force’s original assertion that the Northrop/EADS plane offers cost advantages, according to Boeing.
When announcing the award in February, the Air Force said the larger size of the Northrop/EADS plane helped tip the balance in its favor since that tanker would be able to haul more fuel, cargo and troops.
Boeing contends the larger tanker will cost the Air Force more to operate since it will be less fuel efficient, and will require the military to strengthen runways and expand hangars.
Interesting but I don’t think it will be cause for the GAO to remove the contract from Northrop Grumman. At all times in the bidding process it was pointed out the the a330 option was more expensive. What makes the aircraft attractive is its larger fuel offload and greater cargo capacity. Believe me I think the USAF will find use for that extra capacity with all its global commitments.
When the RAF was selecting its new tanker remember comparative between the two types in respect of the old VC10. In that the KC767 operating out of the main RAF tanker base could spend an extra 10 minutes on station over the VC10 on a standard north sea tow line. On the other hand the a330 could stay an extra hour on the same tow line with the aircraft operating out of Toulouse. Those kind of figures can’t be ignored in a procurement competition.
We will see next week.
FedaykinCan anyone help me out with some specific details on the WS-9 and esp. the Quinling !
As far as I know is the WS-9 a licensed “copy” of the original Rolls-Royce RB.168 Mk.202 Spey obtained during the mid to late 1970s to power the JH-7and replace their originally planned WS-6.
For the JH-7A later an improved version called Quinling – and strangely not called WS-9A – was developed. Certification was granted in July 2003 and production is running since 2004. It was officially confirmed in a TV-report in January 2008.
What I need is:
1. Has anyone some additional technical data like thrust, weight, … for both engines ?
2. Are there any information about the technical changes made from WS-9 to Quinling ?
3. Are there some more dates to add into the timeline esp. for the Quinling ?Thanks a lot in advance,
Deino
Well China did get some stored uprated Spey from Rolls Royce intended for the canceled FGR2 Phantom upgrade for the RAF. Thats probably a good starting point.
FedaykinUnless the interceptor was LO, they should show up on the stealth fighter’s radar long before they’re in range for an IR missile shot.
Aahh but if our stealthy fighter lights up its radar up then it looses any advantage it has.
FedaykinActually whilst I’m thinking about it I hope at least one of the Type 42 are saved as a museum ship.
Certainly some of the survivors are worthy of preservation, maybe its time for a campaign before its too late!
FedaykinI would think the 1022 and 909 would stay, the long range radar is a handy asset even for a ship with no surface to air capability and the 909 are needed for the Mod 8 Gun.
As for the launchers I would think the RN have enough refurbished ones in stores to not warrant taking the mounts off. They will probably allow them to rust in place, also think about the PR aspect a bit embarrasing showing frontline RN warships having their primary weapon system removed.
FedaykinI can understand the astonishment but to be honest I dont have a massive issue with this, at the end of the day if a real AAW need was suddenly needed there would still be enough of Sea Dart left and PAAMS would be close enough that both could be constituted in a very short time frame. I agree that it is less than ideal but if money is being saved for only a temporary loss of capability at a time when it is not needed then it is not the end of the world.
I always felt sorry for the T42’s anyway, made as small as possible for reasons of economy and then prevented from being the ships that they could have been through the cancellation of the Type 1030 STIR, Mark-2 Sea Dart and the 4 round Sea Wolf launcher based on the Sea Cat launcher. And they were far cheaper than a T22. A sad tale indeed.
Actually has anybody got any pictures of the proposed four round Sea Wolf launcher.
I think it was earmarked for the Invincible class as well.
FedaykinYou have to understand the nature of stealth and its propose.
In the ideal form it will allow to go in somewhere, before someone is able to prevent that or do even realize that.
The least demand is to give a time advantage to delay the fire-circle to fullfill a given task. Like a MBT, the related weight/cost do not allow a total protection against all threats, the efforts are focused into a few important areas only. Fire control-radar are of short-wave length. You can live through the frustrations, when the operators can monitor such aircraft approaching with their longer-wave surveillance radar, but still unable to do something about that, because your short-wave fire control radar is unable to get a firm lock at that opponent. The best thing such defenders are can hope for is, that enough time was left to do all tricks for own survival at best. The same problem do face alerted interceptors, which may try to close into eyesight, but when doing so be a prominent target itself, because a stealth-fighter has the first firing opportunity most of the time.
I know the nature and purpose of stealth SENS vis a vi the difference between air search and fire control radar. You don’t need to direct an explanation at me:rolleyes:
FedaykinExactly the crux of the issue with Stealth it is far cheaper to upgrade fighter electronics and software.
Also the buzz word with weapons development these days is COTS, the top end processing power required is available off the shelf.
FedaykinI don’t know but its certainly a painting I would want in my collection.
FedaykinThat the 1022L could detect the F117 back in 1991 (which it did out to a range of about 150miles) is not that much of a surprise.
Its a large, powerful ship mounted radar which at that point was fairly mature in its development. Also the F117 isn’t as stealthy in a technical sense as many would think. Its stealth features were optimised for fire control radars and many would argue its most stealthy feature was its mission planning system which alowed it to fly a route plan that kept it out of direct harms way.
New generation electronically scanned ship radar like SPY1 or Sampson with their large arrays and powerful computers would have little problem with a stealth fighter. Sampson is meant to be able to detect and track smaller supersonic anti ship missiles and I’m sure SPY1 can do much the same.
On the other hand fighter radar would find it a far greater challenge. Not insuperable to my mind but certainly more problematic.
FedaykinWell the my Widget is better than yours is a good argument but then again there a number of things that will cause a thread to head off subject.
FedaykinI would think the space will be left empty and any useful easily removed systems taken for the remaining GWS30 shooters in the fleet.
In effect an OPV.
FedaykinWell fancy satellite or balloons are not the way forward in defeating stealth aircraft.
Improvements in Radar technology especially in the fields of software and computer technology are the way forward.
Even old radar systems can pick up stealth aircraft if used effectively, the 1022L radar on the Type 42 Destroyer can pick up stealth types a fair way out.
I have a hunch that every radar house in the market are working on reducing the advantages in stealth aircraft. I don’t think even the mighty F22 will have the same stealth advantage in 10 to 15 years time.
FedaykinThe thing we are missing here and often gets overlooked is the fact that the WS-10 is not a direct AL-31 copy.
Rather it is based on the core of the CFM56 which in itself based on the
General Electric GE-F101 from the B1B. A highly logical idea considering the GE-F101 was used as the basis for the GE-F110.
The problem for China is whilst the core of the CFM56 is a good starting point getting the materials right for a fighter engine is a difficult task. Certainly the WS-10 development was fairly stagnent until techology from the AL31 was introduced. Unfortunately certain Russian fan boys have locked onto this as evidence that the WS-10 is an AL-31 copy which it just isn’t.
For China the WS-10 is probably more of a technology improvement program to benefit any future J10 sales to Pakistan and their own next generation fighter program.
Sign In
