LevshaNice bit of PS there ,TC….
No stabiliser input for bank angle……
Should be a real photo – certainly a real manoeuvre:
LevshaFor the aircraft carrier design there is no doubt the Russians should be the lead designers for nuclear engines, radars and weapons.
I doubt if The Chinese have much to learn from any country in these categories, except perhaps with hypersonic missiles. In fact, it seems as if Chinese Navy ships have more advanced AESA radars fitted than can be found on Russian Navy vessels?
Levshano wonder that the Keyforum is known a kindergarten!
Cheer up. This forum is not that bad compared to another certain forum where there are a bunch of tards that cant tell the difference between the purpose of different air defense missiles and think 1 country is ahead of the other by comparing that country’s new missile sensor about to come out to the Russians old one instead of their newer one coming out. Ironically users that have accounts over there and over here I see as the only knowledgeable users besides them having different interests from mine. I assure you the only reason they don’t come to this forum is to save face from getting rekt.
Yup, sounds like russiadefence.net.
LevshaRussia-Sino consortium will also go for an An-124 replacement program too
Didn’t the Chinese get technical help from Ukraine or Russia in the development of the Y-20?
If the Chinese didn’t need to create a foreign partnership to create the Y-20 they certainly won’t need to form a foreign partnership to create a bigger version of such a transport aircraft.
LevshaF-35 is still really too early to judge but Raptors seven years after their assembly line closure have clearly passed from raw to rotten without ever being ripe…
That seems like an unduly harsh thing to say about the F-22. Most of the Eurocanard fighters ever put into service by European air forces probably aren’t flying every day either. I’d love to know what the combat readiness rate for the Su-35 in the RuAF is these days?
LevshaThis roughly goes to Mach 2.3 to Mach 2.5, and implies roughly a Mach 2.7-2.8 top speed when the WS-15 becomes mature.
It doesn’t imply anything of the sort – the main determiners of a fighter aircraft’s top speed are aerodynamics and materials(to overcome airframe overheating problems). The underpowered F-14A could fly at mach 2.35 – the much more powerful f-14D may have been actually slower.
LevshaDon’t know why you want to compare F-101 with Lightning – they have somewhat different roles. The F-101 was a bit slower but had way better range and could carry double the warload. Better to compare the Lightning with the F-106, another single seat mach 2 bomber interceptor.
LevshaNo, the range is 2200km for A and C variants.
Here is the proof (the second to last line):
The link is kinda strange but it’s how the LM site is made. You could check it yourself here: https://www.f35.com/
Go to: About F-35 -> Fast Facts
I’m pretty sure they are quoting the combat range – and not the ferry range of the F-35. Combat range would typically be close to the combat radius x 2.
LevshaWhile i agree PAK-FA fly further than F-35, the range of F-35 has never been accepted to be 800 km or lower by anyone. The combat radius is about 1400 km, so range is 2800 km at least
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3868104}[/ATTACH]
As far as I can see, the ferry range of an aircraft can be around 3 times its combat radius. True, I think, for all 3 eurocanards.
Ferry range for the Typhoon and the Rafale is around 3,700 km or so – SAAB Gripen: 3,200 km. I don’t see why the F-35 couldn’t do 3,500 km?
LevshaI never said I did. I said it was a pretty safe bet – and it is. A vehicle with more gas will usually have more go. You should keep in mind that volume increases with the cube of dimensions. A cube which has its sides increased by 10% each has a 33% increase in volume. Strategic bombers use this little trick to carry around sufficient fuel for very long ranges while also carrying immense payloads. [/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
You say that, and yet a Gulfstream business jet has almost the same range as an Airbus A380 – an aircraft 20 times bigger. There are other factors which determine range too.
I’m sorry you are so emotionally invested in this.
No more so than anyone else…
LevshaBallsy claim, heavy twin engine fighter not having more endurance than medium single/twin engine fighters? Absurd. I can’t think of a single instance where this has been true, at least with aircraft with released specification.
I can think of many instances, F-16 was generally believed to have a better endurance than the heavier twin-engined MiG-29. I’m not sure there was much difference in range between the F-16 and F-15, was there?
Especially since we have a widely accepted figure of 117 engined Su-57 having around 3500km range, versus same condition figures for F-35 being around 800km lower.
Accepted by who? Whose figures are these – I don’t think figures for the ferry range of both the F-35 and Su-57 have ever been released?
LevshaThose are your words, Levsha, not mine. The Su-57 has more range than either the F-35 or the FC-31…mostly because it is carrying a lot more fuel. Although, in comparison with the FC-31, I would wager it has a considerable advantage in efficiency too. It just isn’t probable for the FC-31 to match that.[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
You have no evidence to suggest that the Su-57 has a greater ferry range or combat radius than the F-35 (except at supersonic speeds), none. it may not even be an improvement on the J-31 endurance.
And the FC-31 is more “bare bones” than the F-35, J-20, and Su-57. It doesn’t have any IRST/EOTS system and it doesn’t have the same level of apertures. Either more will be added to it (and in which case the design is nowhere close to completion) or it is targeting the section of the market for a simple, low cost stealth fighter.
Surely you don’t think the Chinese are going to market a 5th gen fighter without an EOTS system, do you? Such systems do exist for the J-31 – they may even have been tested and integrated – not necessarily on the J-31 though.
LevshaI am impressed with Chinese progress but we need to be realistic and reality is they didn’t even start making WS-13 and you are mentioning WS-19. It would take time to iron WS-13 and only then they will start serious work with WS-19.
Su-57 engine have lot of new tech, for example plasma ignition. Can you point out which western engine have something like that?
As I wrote earlier J-31 is could be good plane but it isn’t match for Su-57. They are different class of stealth fighters. So J-31 need to be noticable cheaper to be competitive with Su-57.
I was speaking about the Type 30 engine – the final engine type for the Su-57. I don’t think it is near ready for production yet. The engine you are speaking off is still an advanced derivative of the 1970s AL-31F. It’s closest equivalent is probably the General Electric F110-GE-132, as fitted to the F-16E.
Levsha“While the J-31 has a fourth-generation engine, the Su-57 fifth-generation engine. The combat range of Su-57 1100 km / 1500 km, the range of J-31 900 km / 1200 km
[LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Helvetica]The level of combat effectiveness is fighters of different generations”]
Where do you find all these precise figures? I’m pretty sure they’re not available yet.
I am curious why Levsha thinks there is a possibility the J-31 would be better than the Su-57 engines when the Chinese themselves were reliant on their engines and the Russians are undergoing tests with a better newer efficient engine for the SU-57. I am not doubting if they can close the gap really quick because that can also be a possibility for Russia’s electronics industry when producing FICs later. Anything is possible but I just don’t see or cannot find evidence the engines on the J-31 outrange the SU-57.
Do you think the Chinese are standing still technologically as well? I’m sure they are looking for a replacement for the RD-93 and WS-13 as we type. Both the Su-57 and J-31 need to move on from the 40-year old engine technology which they are using now – no disagreement there… There is the WS-19 engine – a new powerplant for the J-31?
Levsha[USER=”9270″]Levsha[/USER] – Sure, I don’t know about range. But it’s a pretty safe bet. The FC-31 is only slightly larger than the F-35 (and so fuel storage won’t be much different), but it’s got two engines to feed and they don’t have the same level of technology in them. So, assuming less efficiency is practically a given.
The F-35 carries a huge amount of fuel, 8+ tonnes, at a big fuel fraction. The Su-57 will carry over 3 tonnes more than the F-35 but is a much bigger aircraft (with two engines) so fuel consumption will be higher. I doubt if there is much difference in either aircraft’s range, combat radius. The J-31 may have a similar fuel fraction, who knows?
Why are you taking it as a criticism to point out that size plays a role in preference? I mean, it does. Take India’s MRCA competition for one example – all of the entries were considered medium size! (Gripen could be considered a light size…and it wasn’t selected!) Size does play a role, because it’s a factor in so many specifications. And once you recognize that you will see that those two designs are chasing different parts of the overall fighter market. That’s why I said they won’t compete much.
OK, I can accept that. I think it was the phrase “bare bones” type of 5th gen fighter. You get the radar and MAWS…and that’s about it.” Nothing ‘bare bones’ about the F-35 compared to the Su-57 – the J-31 may not be much different.
Sign In
