That’s a fair assessment as well. That being said, I kind of like my wing on the other hand…….it is part of why I’m a lot more feared at the merge than an A-6 would have been….that and it makes it easy not to hit things on either side of the landing area back at the boat 🙂

Interesting about the A-6 vs F-14 wing, I’d always noticed how similar they looked, but I didn’t know it had been transplanted

I read somewhere lately that the accidents rates for USN is pretty high up until F-18.

I can assure you 90% of that is fbw. IMHO It’s still a POC wing. 🙂

You make some valid points. I’d say that the main advantage that the A-6F would have had over the Hornet (aside from just being cool) is fuel, fuel, and more fuel. That and they can carry a whole heck of a lot more ordnance than we can ever hope to. That being said, in this day and age of JWeps and such, the days of going “downtown” and dropping a manly stick of 22×500# GP’s is probably over for good. At least with the current unease of collateral damage. As for survivability amongst threat WEZ’s, that’s probably a discussion better left off the interwebs, but I’d take my Hornet over an Intruder any day of the week. But I would like some more gas…..

You forgot the wing.
It’s the drag that makes the other half of range equation.

A-6 Had a pretty good high subsonic wing designed for efficient cruise. not so for that thin POC that;s on F-18’s wing .
they put the same basic A-6 wing, scaled it, and put on it the pivot. yes, on the F-14….

btw it’s basically the same wing (scaled that Grumman puts on their Gulfstream IIs which was built for range at speed. which the basic ideas gulfstream later shamelessly adapted and streched all the way to their Vs. 🙂

@TR1 Trident.

look at it this way.
the role Russian Aviation industries is fulfilling for the PLAAF is a somewhat secure alternative source to ensure over-all schedule of their programs. either by technology transfer or direct imports.

It’s the far cry from only couple of years ago where alot of the over-all weapon systems can only be sourced from Russia.

a good example is their large air-lifter program. they have a tight schedule and they have identified the critical item that drives their over-all schedule into service is the engines. so they secured an engine source as D30K brought directly from Russia. after which their Chengdu aero-engines will build D30Ks in house…all to get the developement and intial induction on schedule. all the while they are getting their large high-by-pass turbofan developement in high gear to do an CFM56 class engine based on their WS-10 gas generator (very ironic! ) to power the ultimate version due to be available after couple of years in service.

The same pattern holds for J-11B, J-10A, etc etc.
To say the chinese industries are still lag behind today because they still import from Russia is kinda like seeing the tree but missing the forest.
Do they lag? yes. but obviously they are on a pretty fast clipped trajectory. are they going to have hiccups? of course. would this matter in the overall scheme? barring an ww3 or a total collapse of chinese social-economic system, no. the hiccups would not matter.

in a couple of years would you still be able to identify systems that Russian Aerospace industry is able to provide? sure. but by this trend you will find those items to matter less and less to the over-all program schedule and risks. that’s the important thing imho. whose right and whose wrong? you guys may be right in the transient of time. but its only the transients.

Hmmm Yes that rumour is already out since two days but – at least at the SDF – the currently accepted opinion is that it was nothing but a rumour, since this photo below reportedly shows this prototype 1034 “after” its crash !

I have to admit that proves or disproves nothing but overall it’s strange.

Deino

Some dude wrote a poem and post it on the web.
SOme one else with a very active imagination take that to mean J-10B 1034 crashed.
The guy who wrote the poem completely debunk the rumour.

much ado about nothing.

MMBPP SALUT has this:
Google translate, but you get the point.

– Indeed, the AL-31F – motor, high demand currently. And we have confidence that in the medium term, production volume will be reduced.
On the contrary, there is some growth. If you take the statistics and plans for delivery in 2009-2012, the annual increase will be at 15-20% per year. Basically, he will remain at the expense of exports to China upgraded AL-31FN engine for the J-10 fighter. A month ago, Rosoboronexport signed a contract with China for more than 120 engines, the supply of 13 engines in 2011 and the completion of deliveries in 2013. In addition, held in June in Beijing meeting of the intergovernmental commission the Chinese side expressed its interest in the supply of upgraded AL-31FN engines with increased thrust – to 137 engines. So for the period 2014-2015 to the year, based on existing and future orders, which we see can be formed quite tense production program. Of course, if we talk about the period before 2020, the AL-31F will gradually descend from the market, the volumes will be reduced.

130 engines ~ 40 fighters, 2 regiments worth of engines.
that is about 1 year production at current rate of J-10.
also happen to be roughly the initially buy number PaF is looking at for “JF-20”

may be they are looking for an engine that can back fit to older models as a spare replacement that also offers higher thrust. who knows.

may be situation is similar to F-16C/D block *0 vs *2, maintaining two engine sources to put pressure on the either supplier and build redundancy into critical sources

Partly Corrected!:D

Take a look at this:
http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=664

“Thrust growth and jet nozzle with thrust vector control are potential if modernized into the AL-31FN-M1 arrangement.”

Could this be the one last order by China??
There it seems you are right, cause new produced AL-31FN is rated at 12.700kgf..
So yes, PLAAF might have down rated em for longer life..

To my knowledge salut offered to Chengdu, no firm answer yet.
if any customers (PLA, PaF) wants them, I am sure Chengdu would oblige. but I think at the moment they are trying to put together a new proposal based on a much bigger power plant. wether salut is involved or not, don’t know.

As for the “down rate for longer life part”…
on the same page, AL-31F is quoted as rated 200 kgf less than the AL-31FN variant. with flow rate and inlet diameter being the same.
no, not a good evidence to show anything.

Plus, I would take a modern MiG-29 over a contemporary J-10 😉

.

interm or radar performance I can’t comment because there are too many variations in paramerters. but in term of airframe-system performance…

I would take J-10A/B over a Modern Mig-29 and here is why:

a Me-109F or a G was deadly in the hands of expertens in BoB. but spitfire would let the pilot know know how close you are to the edge of the envelope but a Me-109 would take a novice straight through it.

the system J-10A had can take the aircraft to the edge interm of angle of attack and energy limits, and stay there, and not worry too much of loosing control. and that’s consistent if you are a novice with 100 hours or a experten with 1000 hours. donno with Mig-29. or at least I haven’t heard.

USN: Wanted advanced tomcat variants as NATF alternative, got F-18E

I would say “some people in USN” wanted advanced tomcat variants.