How about the countless BMW’s, Mercedes, Audis, Volvos, Volkswagens, Minis, Bentleys, Rolls-Royce, Morgans, Ferraris, Jaguars, Saabs, Land Rovers, Maseratis, Maybachs, Lamborghinis, etc. etc. etc.

Also, how many American Cars are inturn are sold in Europe? So, don’t go beat your drum to loud! :p :p :p

That´s true, but you´re going to have serious problems trying to find an article in the “Times”, or in “Der Spiegel”, or in “Liberation”, or in “La Stampa”, or in “Expresso”, called “Dont buy Ford´s, because they are…well, they weren´t invented here” 😀

Cheers 😉

I want the same that the PR guys at Lock Mart were drinking when they came up with this brochure. :diablo:

It´s a Block 60… It uses the same radar, the same engine, the cockpit his a carbon copy of the “Desert Falcon”, etc…

FUKUSEI :diablo:

😀

British Humour?

First, the price for the F-22 is ~130 Million per copy and the F-35 likely around 60-80 Million. As for either being more expensive? What do you think it cost for a brand new F-15 vs a F-4 back in the late 1970’s? So, prices always go up! To put this in perspect of…………take a new BMW sedan 30 years ago and compare it to a new one today! Oooch! That said, fighter types are getting to expensive and mainly because of the lack of numbers. The orders just get smaller and smaller. Which, is the main reason the US Goverment wants to move past the F-22 and get the F-35 rolling. As the latter can be produced in very larger numbers. This will of course lower the the fly away cost and the overall price of ownership!

The Fly Away cost of the F-22 Raptor his precisely 154,267 million a pop. In 2007 it hit it´s lowest cost at 136,826 million per unit, the (planned) last batch of twenty fighter´s will be delivered in 2009 for 146,388 million for aircraft.

And the “Fly Away” cost of the F-35A will be 60 million´s when it “snows in Ougadougou” 😀
The “Fly Away” cost of the F-35A will be 83.131 million per unit IF (a HUGE if) the entire fleet of 1763 unit´s are delivered to the USAF (and i´m a bit sceptical about that one).
The first 142 F-35A will be delivered till 2013 at a “Fly Cost” of 120 million for aircraft.

A big “HURRA” for the USAF for having it´s budget in the internet.
(http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf page 1-13 for the Raptor numbers, and 1-1 for the F-35A)

Your entire line of reasoning is flawed even though you already touched upon the reason already.

You are comparing western design philosophy with Chinese. Just because Europeans and Americans like to make their planes heavy to meet the multi-role criteria is no reason to insist that the Chinese are also doing so. The M2K, F16E, Typhoon and Rafale are all designed as multi-role fighters meant to carry AAMs, bombs and AShMs, maybe even all at once. That requires substantually greater structural strength, which equals wait. Just look at how much weight the F16 has gained moving from the basic AA F16A to the multi-role F16E, and thats even with improving and increasing use of composity materials. Comparing western types to Chinese types is simply apples and oranges.

There is little to no evidence to suggest that the Chinese are also imposing such requirements on their fighter designs, and for the most part, it looks like the PLAAF is still mainly a type dedicated force because they have the numbers and depth of types to do so. We have not seen the J10 carry anything heavier then fuel tanks or lightweight bombs. It looks pretty clear that the J10 is primarily an AA type, while the strike missions would be left to the JH7As and Su30s.

You argue that the JF17 is lighter because it was designed to carry less, but funny that you refuse to apply that same logic to the J10. Hell, your F5 example only serves to further underline the point that a plane can be remarkably light, thus physical size is a very variable means to judging weight. Another example would be the J8II, which is actually similar in size to the Flanker, yet you would not have guessed it just going by the weights.

And also remember that the JF17 uses absolutely no composites and is still a ton lighter then the M2k. One wonders how lighter a plane designed with a similar philosophy but also employs a lot of composites would be compared to western types of a similar size.

Just two question´s.

Do you really believe that the J-10 his nothing more than a point defence interceptor?
Do you really believe that the clean weight of the J-10 is a bit more than seven tonnes?

Is just me, or the idea of the J-10 being something like 5% heavier than the IAI Lavi is just unbelievable…

How is the kill ratio known if the details aren’t? Any link mate?

He´s talking about “Sky Lance 2007”, it was an article in AFM, the 49/1 kill ratio was given by Group Captain Stuart Atha, RAF Coningsby Station Commander.

J-8I uses heavier and weaker material than J-10. The materail used on J-10 is a couple of generations ahead of J-8I. This comparison is frankly just sad.

TPHUANG

It´s called structural integrity. If that theory of yours was correct, the Typhoon with it´s 85% of non metalic composites would be weighting 8/9 tones, it´s not… And the Dassault Rafale should be way lighter than the Mirage F2, the F-16 should be lighter than the F-104, the Mirage 2000 should be lighter than the Mirage III, etc, etc, etc. I can find, literally, dozens of examples in which your comparison is just plain wrong, so leave the “sad” comments to yourself.
If the J-10, a fighter broadly similar in size to the Dassault RAFALE, is a 7 plus ton plane, we have two options, the Chinese industry just made a huge breakthrough in composite materials and aerospace design, and every 4º and 5º generation fighters from Russia, the USA and Europe are with weight problems, or, the J-10 can´t carry almost nothing under it´s wings. I have serious doubts that any of these are true.
And the JF-17 can cut almost a ton in clean weight in relation to the Mirage 2000, because they cut more than two tones of external ordnance in the design… And of course, that being “trés triste”, i could alway´s point out that the F5E TigerII, a plane who his almost of the same size of the JF17 and has a similar configuration his only a 4,4 ton fighter, despite being a design of the early “seventies” and theoreticaly being made of “heavier and weaker material a couple of generations behind” the JF17.
It´s IMPOSSIBLE that the J-10 his a 7 plus tonnes, that´s just wishfull thinking.