dark light

i.e.

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 1,076 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2375864
    i.e.
    Participant

    j-15 is a copy of su-33 that is obivious.about engines everyone knows the quality of chinese engines.the same think for avionics.i dont know why they dont create they design but continue to steale russian design.that a proof of their inability

    when was the last time PLAAF purchased big upgrades on avionics and radar from Russia?

    do you think if WS10 sucks so much that PLA, a organization that has previously willing to threaten Shengyang by going exclusive Salut and set-up a licensed AL-31 production line in country, that would now demand the WS-10 production rates to be increased 20-30% per year for the last couple of years?

    as for why they have gone for a Su-33 based solution, I have stated previously why PLAN may have made ther decision.The PLANners have a schedule to keep and Russian hardware, copied or not ensures schedule risk is minimized.

    as for “steale russian design” in general. while some are unlicensed copies, yes, other many of these are simply low-level licensed technology transfers. HHQ-16 for example. In more instances it is Russia’s inability to deliever on contract that alarmed the risk averse PLA planners thus demand a local copied solution, which as far as schedule risk goes of course would have been superior over domestic designs. but not necessarily in performance or technology, we see this in IL-76 deal (russian can’t deliever on time so they can’t wait) , we see this in SA-N-7s systems purchased for 052B, we see the more in S-300FM system for 051C, (backup incase 052C system fails to deliever). etc etc.

    as general note, gathering more detailed insight into situation is more constructive than repeating generalized biases, don’t you think?

    in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2375876
    i.e.
    Participant

    j-15 i just a downgradad copy of su-33.

    you have to qualify this statement with more than just your own generalized biases.

    in reply to: Strange phenomena for F-4 PhantomⅡ #2375886
    i.e.
    Participant

    The first strange phenomenon is why F-4 can do post-stall maneuver?

    Because it can.

    you don;t need a FBW system to do post stall.

    just need enough control power on the surfaces post stall and a good pilot.

    in reply to: MiG-29KUB vs Su-33/J-15 #2375889
    i.e.
    Participant

    J-15 :rolleyes: its like you buy a 40 inch tv from the store only to find your neighbour gloating about the 46 incher he stole from the same store. :diablo:

    do you see anybody steals a 46 inches TV at store and go home and builds their own LCD screen and decoder processor??

    Even if HAL was given the blue print of Su-33 I doubt it will pull off a J-15.

    btw they are aiming for a higher TOW than su-33, AFAIK they are happy with it..

    on a general note:

    apparently bid was between Chengdu and Shengyang again. Shengyang won on a “lower risk approach”, less schedule risk.. Chengdu wants to do either 1) J-10 carrier version. and 2) a stealthier superbug lookalike. donno for sure.

    in reply to: The AESA radar retrofit market #2376259
    i.e.
    Participant

    seriously.

    who opens its radar and scan for your opposite number anymore!

    in reply to: Chinese pilot practicing carrier ops on Kuznetsov #2376354
    i.e.
    Participant

    What is the fan diameter for those WS-10H?

    I would not be surprised if it was larger than the AL-31M1:

    Design modular
    Maximum thrust, kgf 13500
    Minimum specific fuel consumption, kg/kgf*h 0.685
    Air consumption, kg/s 118
    Inlet diameter, m 0.924
    Maximum dimension, mm 1140
    Maximum length, m 4.945
    Dry weight, kg 1520

    http://www.salut.ru/Section.php?SectionId=18

    donno, slightly bigger than AL-31F vanilla.
    higher bypass, higher compression ratio. bit higher turbine inlet temp. bit heavier.
    prob not as good as AL31F in dealing with flow distortions and surges.

    in reply to: Chinese pilot practicing carrier ops on Kuznetsov #2376369
    i.e.
    Participant

    Why worry when we are getting F 35 C on our next carrier. 😉

    by the time one gets 35C, we are talking about PLAN’s global op and targeting capability for its integrated space based network. plus a 5th gen follow and who knows may be J-20H.

    its the system that gives one an edge not any individual item in your inventory.

    russians are right to choose 29K at this moment. for practical operational aspect there isn’t any different between 29K and su33, they and IN generally don’t send their carrier fighters out thousand miles out like USN does. they simply don’t have the command and control capability.

    in reply to: Chinese pilot practicing carrier ops on Kuznetsov #2376412
    i.e.
    Participant

    Well, the vanilla Su-33 does not exist anymore.
    You now got the upgraded Su-33, with AL-31FM1 engines rated at 13.5kgf.

    which is about what WS-10 H is rated at. somewhat.

    in reply to: European LO Fighter still with vertical tail…. #2376421
    i.e.
    Participant

    ok why not just EF stealth? i dont see the point of expensive hardware that burns in the pocket every hour.
    The world are getting smaller, military budgets are under the microscope, noone except maybe china and brazil, can dogde the budget restraining bullit.

    how do you make EF stealthy?
    unless you have magic stealth dust or something like that you have to change shape.
    reshape means new integrated external stealth shaping and aerodynamics. new aerodynamics means new structure. which means basically a new program.
    one can do is leverage all the system experience built up during EF. rest is easy.

    in reply to: European LO Fighter still with vertical tail…. #2376427
    i.e.
    Participant

    It may be possible that different groups of engineers working on a similar problem may come up with designs that may look similar. The designs/concepts for twin engine medium sized stealth fighters based on twin 8-10 ton engines may end up only as similar as EF and Rafale are to each other, ei only on a very superficial level.

    They go for these similar lay out prob because
    1) their store brought RCS prediction and optimization tools are not ready for big times. not enough studies to have confidence.
    2) conventional layout , lower risk on the stability/control side of things.
    3) windtunnel and cfd tools are not mature to the point. can’t afford a million hour in windtunnel or simply don;t have the experties.
    4) single big engine is hard to come by, the only sources are Russia, US, and may be china. oppose to medium size engines. GE is practically giving them to anyone who wants them.
    .

    None of these matter for the EF consortium though. they even have a wonderful engine to boot.
    so that;s why EF has a chance to remake itself and pre-empt some of these attempts before these domestic attempts at medium size stealth fighter gets its right by chance and wipe Europe out in the mid sized fighter game.

    shape up europe or get wiped out.


    p.s.

    China is making a mid-sized twin engine 4.75 gen fighter for export in exactly the same class. aimed at those who can afford better things than JF-17. It’s almost an secondary effort compare to their 5th gen effort.

    in reply to: European LO Fighter still with vertical tail…. #2376430
    i.e.
    Participant

    then instead of 3 baby bays, have 1 larger bay, that way you can at least fit in larger munitions when you need to, like a single Ashm, or two lgbs, etc?

    I suspect these days the intial stage design are revolved more and more around bays. once the excess thrust brought by evolution in engine thrust made it possible to cancels out negative effects of the dreaded increase volumn, they realized one can meet the performance targets with large internal bays.

    in reply to: European LO Fighter still with vertical tail…. #2376433
    i.e.
    Participant

    how about this, if you could design a stealthy aircraft powered by either 2 Eurojets, M88s, or F414s.. how would you do it? assuming that this design is intending to serve either the JSDF, S.KOrean AF, Turkish AF, or Indonesian AF.. who are all looking to develop something of this size and type.

    it would be interesting what kind of design you would consider 😉

    you go for a intial requirement to be able to swap these engines with a modification. common engine bay. 🙂
    and inlet design too.

    in reply to: Chinese pilot practicing carrier ops on Kuznetsov #2376435
    i.e.
    Participant

    of course an upgraded SU-33 already does exist. called J-15. India and Russia can always go there if they wanted to :diablo:

    a bit more on J-15,

    apparently the WS-10 “H” engine (the J-15 intial engine) program is doing pretty good.
    increased thrust compare to vanilla AL-31F, so bit better takeoff distance than vanilla 33. and better transient characteristics for TOGA than WS-10A

    in reply to: European LO Fighter still with vertical tail…. #2376731
    i.e.
    Participant

    Because you would end up with a new design (something awfully similar to that SAAB design), and no one in europe has the money and the political will to fund that particular bird.

    Cheers

    Hey!
    you don;t get out of the ditch by being inward looking. invest and you will make $$$. build it and they will come! this is one the of the few industries that europe is stil vastly ahead. sit on your **** and frit about no-money/politicial-will will not help europe to retain that lead!

    in reply to: European LO Fighter still with vertical tail…. #2376734
    i.e.
    Participant

    or the military need?

    None of these asian designs are going to happen any time soon. They are a means to an industrial end aren’t they rather than a demonstration of aerospace manufacturing excellence.

    they still need to convince the respective military that this is the solution will fit their needs.

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 1,076 total)