Page 55 – Key Publishing

Blitzo

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 1,256 total)

← 1 2 3 … 54 55 56 … 82 83 84 →

Author

Posts
September 14, 2011 at 12:12 pm in reply to: China's Kamikaze Aircraft #2314078

Blitzo
Participant

I think we can agree the PLAAF and PLANAF can not bring all their JH-7/As to bear in one unified attack unless circumstances presented itself.

But even more unlikely than that is the PLAAF will be “gutted” if PLA was required to take out a CVBG at all costs. They have multiple other assets avaiable, with some being as specialized in their anti ship role as JH-7

September 14, 2011 at 11:35 am in reply to: China's Kamikaze Aircraft #2314101

Blitzo
Participant

I can’t imagine the PLA would be willing to sacrifice their entire air force to knock out one US carrier.

SSKs and FACs would be used either seperately or conjoint with aerial assets in that role I imagine.

And that’s if the USN is willing to come within a couple thousand kms of the chinese coast with the ASBM threat. Whether it can defeat SM-3 and Aegis is another matter, but I think the very possibility would lead to diverting of resources to counter it, or leaving CVNs out of range altogether.

How did this thread turn into “let’s defeat a CVBG!”? The title was pretty misleading in the first place. Kamikaze…? C’mon… :rolleyes:

September 14, 2011 at 5:34 am in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2314196

Blitzo
Participant

To be honest I’ve always thought that spacing was too narrow; even the Flanker’s spacing looked wider in some pics.

Though even worse for me is having it confirmed that no, there are no side bays on the PAK-FA for short-range AAMs. Even for those precious spaces from the main bays will have to be sacrificed.:(

Despite being larger than the Raptor the PAK-FA only seems to have as much internal storage as an F-35…

There are those little conformal bump things for sraams?

September 12, 2011 at 4:33 am in reply to: PLAAF Thread 15 #2315225

Blitzo
Participant

That picture actually shows a Il-76 being converted to KJ-2000 so yeah.

The models we’ve seen reminds me of A400M+C-17 more than Il-76, and I don’t think Y-20 will be what J-11 is to Su-27. It will likely incorporate lessons learnt from operating Il-76s but if it was a direct copy i think we would have heard rumours of it by now.
Rumours are it’ll fly by 2012, but even then it’ll be late in the decade until it can enter service, if even that. PLAAF really should have bought the Il-76s/78s those few years ago, their airlift capabilities are severely lacking.

That drawing, incidentally looks a bit like an upsized An-70 with jets.

September 12, 2011 at 12:01 am in reply to: Indian Navy – News & Discussion – IV #2034486

Blitzo
Participant

but there’s no AEW Merlin yet? or at least that I know of?
and no AEW Z-8? the Chinese as far as i know, still use the Ka-31? please correct me if I’m wrong.

This thingy?

http://cnair.top81.cn/Ka-31_Z-8AEW.htm

September 11, 2011 at 11:23 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2315260

Blitzo
Participant

An engine which will in turn be a variant of the WS-10?

I think WS-15 exists for a reason.

September 11, 2011 at 9:31 am in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2315647

Blitzo
Participant

I think it’d have a hard time fitting in four, three’s more realistic.

Does the RVV-SD/a future R-77 development feature folding strakes along with its potato mashers? That’s possibly the only way it can squeeze in four.

EDIT:

yeah.

From the manufacturer http://eng.ktrv.ru/production_eng/323/503/567/…

RVV-SD
Launch Range:
– max, at the front hemisphere, km – up to 110
– min, at the aft hemisphere, km – 0.3
Target altitude, km – 0,02 – 25
Launch weight, kg – not more than 190
Missile dimensions, m
– length – 3.71
– diameter – 0.2
– wing span – 0.42
– fin span – 0.68

I suppose wing span should be the measurement used, rather than diameter or fin span.

September 10, 2011 at 11:15 am in reply to: PLAAF Thread 15 #2315972

Blitzo
Participant

I believe prototypes will use D30, but they eventually plan to use a WS-10 variant to get a bit more out of the airframe.

September 10, 2011 at 9:01 am in reply to: PLAAF Thread 15 #2316098

Blitzo
Participant

Hmm yes it does — coincidence Y-20 shows similarity, or Il-76s are being rebuilt or refurbished in a chinese factory? :confused:

September 10, 2011 at 8:32 am in reply to: PLAAF Thread 15 #2316107

Blitzo
Participant

From here:
http://club.mil.news.sina.com.cn/thread-392698-1-1.html
… so there are three pics. One of them is clearly a Y-8/Y-9

The other two seem to show a different aircraft? Y-20???

September 10, 2011 at 3:05 am in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2316248

Blitzo
Participant

And what exactly does the Su-34 have to do with Pak-Fa? Aside from using vaguely similar engines at this time?

Generally similar engine/nacelle/inlet configuration?
I think we’ve gone over this before.

TR1, what’s your view on whether the current PAK FA has S ducts or not?

September 9, 2011 at 11:03 pm in reply to: PAK FA episodeⅩⅧ #2316361

Blitzo
Participant

If anyone is able to get close to PAK FA in a future airshow, just bring a flashlight with you and shine it up the intake, will you? We’ve all heard the claims that the pics showing T-50s “engine blades” are supposed photoshops, but I haven’t seen the original un PSed pictures.
The fact that some pictures do not show the engine blades from a frontal position like in TR1’s pic could very likely be down to lighting. It’s possible that what they have is an engine blade blocker, which itself sounds like could be as effective as an S duct… which despite everything, I do not think the T-50 has going by photos and looking at its nacelles.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:c3f1c693-d1d6-4f37-b3fd-e7f16e087b2e

September 9, 2011 at 12:02 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2316696

Blitzo
Participant

Well if they were opening weapon bays in flight we’d have a hard time getting photos of it, from the altitude they could be at and that it seems like a fraction of J-20 flights don’t have photos taken of them.

We did get pictures and videos of J-20 performing some tighter maneouvers over the last two months of course which we saw. Not sure if that counts as flight checks.

September 9, 2011 at 10:55 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2316719

Blitzo
Participant

what do you make of this weapons trial story (with image ) on the ARES blog?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac0dda95f-5035-479a-ad10-a1d724d2ffb2&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

true or fake?

Lol aviation week needs to follow SDF or CDF more closely. That was posted a few days ago and it’s clearly a PS.

September 8, 2011 at 10:10 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 6 #2317320

Blitzo
Participant

So, um, back to discussing whether or not the J-20 is primarily a striker, an interceptor, or an air superiority fighter?

Lol I think we all know where everyone stands on the issue.

But if we worked backwards and assumed J-20 was mean to be an air superiority fighter like we’ve been hearing since forever, I wonder what features of the aircraft (that people assume is there) will have to be changed, or even added to, to allow the aircraft to complete the Supermanouverability of the “4S”?

My qualms about eyeballing aerodynamics remain. Maybe if someone had a scale model of the aircraft and a wind tunnel…
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 811 through 825 (of 1,256 total)

← 1 2 3 … 54 55 56 … 82 83 84 →