SlowManrumor is j-18 being tested in inner mongolia this month
J-18 the Chinese harrier, yea right.
SlowManLets be a little bit realisitc OK?
Its pretty obvious to everyone here that when China were as nuclear capable as the US, then even if China nuked the **** out of japan, or any so-called US’ alliances there, the US wont drop nukes on China’s soil, I think it is pretty obvious to everyone here.
While the rest of his posts are garbage that need not be discussed, we need to clarify this one.
The US declared that they would show up at the Diaoyu Islands on the day China invades it. Chinese thinking is a complete disbelief that the US would actually go to war with China over some piece of rock, but that’s the US legal obligation and the US will honor its obligations.
Same with the nuclear umbrella. Chinese can’t imagine that the US would nuke China in retaliation of its nuking another country, but that’s exactly what the President Nixon threatened to do, nuke the Soviet Union in retaliation when the Soviet Premier notified Nixon that the Soviet Union was going to nuke China during the course of the Sino-Soviet war. So would the same US that wouldn’t hesitate to nuke the almighty Soviet Union on the behalf of China not nuke China on behalf of Japan, especially when China of 2012 is nothing like the military might of the Soviet Union of 1969?
China will be nuked on the day it nukes Japan or any of the countries under the umbrella. This is a fact.
SlowManA “Gripen style short landing” will require a ship that would be the longest and largest in the US Navy’s history.
longest yes,
largest no.
In fact, it will require the longest ship ever constructed in history.
Gripen can take off and land from a 400 m runway.
A ship sailing at 30 knots will shorten this distance. Then throw in TVC to Gripen and you could land Gripen on a 300 m runaway, although hook and arrest wires would still be required in case of a bad weather.
For STOL operation, a fighter jet has to be a Eurocanard with a TVC engine to generate lift at both front and back to reduce approach speed.
SlowManIt is my opinion that China is a nation on the rise and will supersede the U.S. as a global superpower.
Fortunately, that day will never come.
The PLAAF can mount a very good campaign against any foe, dumb enough to attack.
No they can’t.
The PLA is a collection of very disorganized, incompetent, and competing warlords, it is nothing like a national military like the US military or the Russian military. The training is poor, and the generals are completely clueless about fighting a war, as demonstrated by disastrous outcomes in Korea, Soviet Union, and in 1979 Vietnam.
Not only that, each of PLA’s 7 military districts(the territory of a warlord) are competitors for power who are happy to take out the other guy when the other guy is in trouble for some reason, so don’t expect any coherent joint war efforts between the warlords against say, the US or Japan.
Also, China is a nuclear power. The politics of dealing with a nuclear nation is very different.
Not only the countries you mentioned with the exception of Vietnam are protected by the US nuclear umbrella, every capable country on earth goes nuclear the moment China uses nukes against its pledge of “never first use”.
So China’s nuclear weapons is like Bee’s sting; you can use it once, but you die too.
SlowManThe lesson learned from the JSF program disaster is that the SVTOL capability would not be required in future joint service jet programs, such as a joint F-X for the USAF, USN, and likely a couple of other foreign countries like Japan and Australia, too much technical sacrifices and risks on other versions to introduce SVTOL.
Likewise, the USMC should abandon its insistence on having SVTOL capability and switch to STOL, and have a number of dedicated STOL carriers that are basically stretched LHDs long enough to support a Gripen style short landing.
SlowManhad there not been a Marine requirement for s/vtol operations, would the CTOL version of the X-32 been the better choice?
Even for the SVTOL the X-32 was the better choice, because at the very worst it would be operated like the Harrier, a proven SVTOL platform.
Having said that, the F-32A and F-32C would be entering IOC today regardless of the F-32B’s fate, because Boeing planned to share F-32A and F-32C’s airframe and leave F-32B as a distinct airframe, unlike the Lockheed approach of making the F-32A and B a common airframe(the X-35B was created by modifying the X-32A that finished testing) and leaving out the F-35C as a distinct airframe.
With the Boeing approach, the F-32A/C would be free from the weight increase and the associated redesign problems of F-32B and be finished on time, regardless of what happened to the F-32B.
But the USMC, the service branch most passionate about the JSF program, was also the most insistent on having the X-35B, so the X-35 won.
“In my mind, it was physics versus technology,” says Lockheed test pilot Paul Smith. “In the area of STOVL performance, Boeing just didn’t have the physics behind them—they didn’t have the thrust of the engine up and the weight of the airplane down, while we had a technology that made efficient use of engine power, but it was so technologically advanced that it was touch-and-go whether it would work. A month before we were supposed to demonstrate STOVL, we were still having problems with the lift fan that we thought we might not be able to fix. Boeing had done so many cool things, and were ahead of us on schedule so much. It was like the tortoise and the hare.”
Tortoise(Lockheed) beat the hare(Boeing) to the finish line, then proceeded to work at a tortoise’s pace. What, you expected a tortoise to work like a hare? Next time, select a contractor that will work like a hare. The tortoise’s work pace has cost the tax payers dearly and ruined the US and allies air power for the next 20 years.
SlowManCan’t fly high enough aerodynamically to escape a heavy SAM that has all the time in the world to target you. Not since the 1960’s.
The HALE that Korea’s shopping for will replace the USAF U-2’s missions. Accordingly, this HALE needs to fly like a U-2, at 65,000 feet.
SlowManYour post makes no sense.
The Global Hawk has attained a record high of 65 300ft during a test flight. It doesn’t operate near “over 65 000ft” operationally.
Boeing Phantom Eye also operates “up to 65 000ft”. In other words, it operates below that figure.
The AeroVaronment Global Observer is also designed to operate below 65 000ft. It was just a concept, until recently. It hasn’et even flown in an expanded envelope flight test.
Whatever Korea buys, it will be flown at the highest altitude possible to avoid North Korean SAMs.
The IAI Eitan, which operates at “over 45 000 ft”, is thus in the same category
Korea is shopping for HALE, not a MALE like Eitan, and it is up to the IAI to prove that Eitan is infact a HALE.
Then there is that Korea ban on Israeli arms purchase after the T-50 fiasco.
Not imposed, but suggested, & accepted by the Korean government for its own reasons. The USA has no power to stop S. Korea building whatever UAVs S. Korea chooses.
Then what’s Japan’s execuse for not building a Global Hawk class drone? Lack of money and technology?
THINK! If Israel can build whatever UAVs it likes
Well, 25% of US senators aren’t Koreans, but Jewish.
so can S. Korea. What do you think the USA would do if S. Korea said “Thanks for the advice, but we’re going to ignore it”?
Stop selling weapons parts.
SlowMankorea will buy whatever the US tells them to, the end.
I was actually shocked how quickly Korea said no, less than 24 hours after the US DoD announcement to sell.
What? No IAI or Elbit?
This is a high altitude(Higher than 65,000 feet) drone program. Israel doesn’t have one to offer.
Why doesn’t South Korea just make it’s equivalent UAV?
They can’t do it fast enough in time. The surveillance drone payload restriction imposed by the US to 500 kg was increased to 2.5 tons a couple months ago, so a local drone can now carry heavy sensor package that was planned to be carried by manned jets(Dassault Falcon Business jets to be exact). The problem is that Korea doesn’t have this kind of high altitude drone yet and developing one takes time and money(About $1 billion).
How the candidates look.
Global Hawk : If this one wins the bid, it will be some kind of “Korea Hawk” similar to “Euro Hawk”, Northrop airframe with Korean SAR and SIGINT package to both reduce cost and gain operational freedom. Global Hawks offered for FMS sale are planned to be operated by the US and the end customer would only have access to processed data, which Korea balked at. A Global Hawk with non-US sensors would not have this problem.
Boeing Phantom Eye : Current Phantom Eye has a payload capacity of 500 kg and may not be suitable.
AeroVaronment Global Observer : With a payload of 900 kg, this looks like a perfect candidate.
SlowManhttp://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-considers-other-drones-2012-12
South Korea Says US Drones May Be Too Expensive
Agence France Presse | Dec. 26, 2012, 6:31 AM | 475 | 1South Korea is not necessarily committed to buying US Global Hawk surveillance drones, a spokesman said on Wednesday, after the Pentagon requested congressional permission for such a sale.
Seoul’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) said it would decide early next year whether to buy the high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles made by Northrop Grumman that have come with a higher than expected price tag, at $1.2 billion for four of the drones.
“We will decide whether to proceed with the purchase plan only after we receive a letter of intent and carefully study the sale’s terms,” a DAPA spokesman told AFP.
Yonhap news agency quoted an unidentified top government official as saying Seoul could consider other choices, such as Boeing’s Phantom Eye and the California-based AeroVironment Global Observer.
The US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said Tuesday it had notified Congress of a possible sale of four remotely-piloted Global Hawk aircraft.
“We’ve never said we would buy no other surveillance drones than Global Hawks,” the South Korean official was quoted as saying by Yonhap after the price tag suggested by DSCA appeared to be prohibitively high.
“Competing drones could be considered”, the official said.“Negotiations would have to start anywhere below 800 billion won (745 million dollars) in total, as was suggested by the US side last October,” the official added.
South Korea relies heavily on its ally the United States for intelligence gathering and surveillance capabilities over nuclear-armed North Korea.
Copyright (2012) AFP. All rights reserved.
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=142498&code=Ne2&category=2
S. Korean Govt. Plans to Re-evaluate Drone Purchase Early Next Year
The Seoul government is planning to re-evaluate the purchase of high-altitude unmanned spy aircraft early next year in order to strenghten its surveillance systems on North Korea.
A senior South Korean official said although the U.S. Department of Defense has proposed selling four Global Hawk surveillance drones to Korea for 1.2 billion U.S. dollars, the Seoul government has not yet decided which drone model the country plans to buy.
The official added that South Korea will review other drone models now being tested when it invites bids for the spy planes next year.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, affiliated with the U.S. Department of Defense on Monday notified the U.S. Congress of the proposed sale of the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft, equipped with infrared, electro-optical sensors and imagery analysis systems.
This would be the first order in the Asia-Pacific region for the drones, which have been used by the U.S. Air Force in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But even if the South Korean government moves forward with a drone purchasing process early next year, officials predict the earliest the aircraft can be deployed in the country is 2017.
SlowMancouldnt this drawbacks be compensated extra doors (with flat surface) underbody mounted al a MIG 29 style?
That adds weight and cost. And it would be hard to open and close doors at supersonic speed instantaneously as needed and the very act of opening anc closing intake panels would disturb the air flow to the engine.
There is a good reason why the 6th gen concepts from Boeing and Lockheed both have side intakes.
SlowManare they considered stealthier than side intakes (ala F-22, J-20) or front intakes (X-32), and under fuesalage ones (Pak-Fa)?
Yes, from the ground radar that would only see a smooth, flat surface.
F/A-117 and B-2 also has this configuration.
what are the disadvantages?
Lower angle of attack and sustained turn possible because the intake is blocked from the air stream.
Highly maneuverable aircraft must still have its intakes at the bottom or by the side.
SlowManAmericans always overestimate / improve their equipment specifications for promotional purposes.
Promotion to whom when a lot of those jets are not for sale, like the F-22, B-1B, B-2, etc?
Based on the description of pilots who have engaged the F-22, namely the USN Hornet(No AESA), Japanese F-15J pilots, and German Typhoon pilots, there is no reason to dispute the alleged RCS of the F-22; it really is difficult to detect an F-22 at BVR range.
SlowManbtw what boeing claim for f-18 E/F rcs :confused:
They claim same frontal RCS as the export model F-35 for the Silent Hornet.
SlowManWith such players as LM -Boeing – NG the US will build new in house to meet there need
LM : marketing T-50.
NG : partnered with BAE to assemble Hawks.
Boeing : The lone US design.
Sign In
