you don’t even need to go that far. you can look at the comments between pro-Indian and pro-China and pro-Pakistan comments in English here to see friction.
give it a rest, weiner.
brits makes condescending jokes about the french all the time, it is no big deal.
The real problem is pace of china’s growth and pace of adjustment.
I will paraphrase this into this:
Where will the massive ToT towards major arms buyers everywhere lead to 40 years from now? We need to stop transfering our technology. If the US exports the F-35 ToT, the Europeans the EF and Rafale ToT, who will buy the F-55, EF2050 and Rafale 2050 when they will be able to build their own aircrafts at large numbers?
Only answer: Cold war needed.
The Abbot can open the door of the Monastery,
But one has to obtain enlightment by their own effort.
I’m not sure how well aware you are of moods in Asia
but these days South Koreans and Chinese hate each other more than they hate the Japanese now.
…and you say that because you have your hands on the pulse of moods in these two countries? and you read local newspapers in their local language?
China hate SK? for what? the great kimchi crisis?
SK hate China? for what? for China stealing Confucius from them?
give it a rest, my frankfurter weiner.
If SK can put aside their nationalism….
teaming up with Japan on Shinshin to make it into a real fighter might not be a bad choice.
but some how I think the chance of that happening is lower than buying fighters from China. :diablo:
This proposal I saw 3 years ago, since the proposal is such similar to the J-20 I saw nowadays, I bet the J-16 won’t go far away from this
It is possible to remove that foreplane and modify the leading edge of wing to be straight.
The tri-plane design and conventional layout design all stem from the same series of studies done in 90s by SADI/601. They don;t have anything radical.
If the recent windtunnel picture is real. then I assume they went ahead and proceeded with the conventional layout design as a baseline for the self-funded project.
They entered the tri-plane for the 5th Gen design competition in 04-05, but imho they should have submitted the conventional lay out one… lower performance but less program risk.
anyways, enough of the what ifs.
The Question of the day is:
How big is this thing.
If it is a full-sized J-20 class a/c designed to compete with J-20 slot, or a SuperHornet sized, super mid sized. design to grab the attention of the navy and hopefully competitive for the mid sized JSF/F-35 slot, which still couple years away from actual selection…
On the chinese JSF (if I can call it) down select, hopefully, and I am going into speculation land here, depends on how the dates fall out, we might actually see a fly off.
If so.. How will this affect the missile?
Clipped/smaller fins means less energy transfere=lesser G turn?
Whats the Pros.. It fits inside internal weapon bay?
I thought missile usually get most of their Lift from body,
nonmoving fins are for managing center of pressure.
I could be wrong, haven’t talked to a missile guy for a while. 😀
Yeah, sure np.:)
On the ventral fins subject.
The only way to be sure is to get the aircraft in the air, do like 2500 hours of test flight.
Then you should have a decent picture about keep or remove the ventral strakes.Pak-Fa is slated for 2500 test flight or was it test flight hours..
Yes, that’s the only sure way.
flight test is really a “final test” on how good your aero and SnC guys are. how close they got to the final answers. all the doubts answered by Newton.
I hope the 2500 number is for test flights.
I hope i get your question correct..
From an engineering point of view, it would entail hour upon hours in wind tunnels, and some computer modeling calculation on top of that.
Mostly in the prossessing of RCS, but both aerodynamics and RCS reduction is interconected anyway.Russian Aviation engineers have allways used wind tunneling to the extreem..
An example is this, the very first thing that was conceeded on the Flanker was the wing(s) and noting else, just the wing.
Two engineers is reported to spend up to 60.000 hours in the SV sentrilized wind tunnels.
They left Mig and joined Sukhoi.
Sukhoi wanted a heavy interceptor design.
It soon became clear that in order for the Flanker wing to achieve the best performance possible, it had to have a long nose section to have the airflow best be feeded into the wings.
Then they started on other section of the aircraft.
In short, Sukhoi designed the whole aircraft around the wings.
The aircraft that finely became the Flanker was a huge effort, with a lot of trials and error..Now enough about the Flanker.
But in general this approach is still a sound one when designing a new aircraft, doesn’t matter if it has VLO requirement.
Get the wings first, then the rest as building blocks.
How many control surfaces/aerodynamic surfaces it needs, is very complex engineering, which i have little knowledge of how they actual do the calculations..
The development of the FCS has come a long way sinse the 80’s, and therefor is allso crusial in aerodynamic performanceAnyway..
Aerodynamics should have first priority over RCS, and then its the classical compromises/pros & Cons all the way to the final product.
I am just commenting on how one goes about predicting these effects (that requires the Ventral fins) and after flight test data says no need for them.
I didn’t expect you to pull out the whole history on flanker,
but sure. 😉
Most Fighters design around their wings these days…. I would say even the most civil aircraft is designed around the wings.
Su-27’s long slender nose with their lerx acts as nice big vortex generators over the wing surface at those angles. so during cobras manuevers the flow over wings behaves predictablly and don;t have a reversal in pitching moment that dramatically. also what’s remarkable is Su-27’s big elevator in the back actually can generate enough nose down pitching moment at those low speeds and high aoas to bring the aircraft back. with out these aero features no FCS on earth can help.
you are absolutely right that FCS can not solve all problems. FCS can maximize what aero gives it and gives it an extra degree of freedom, but it is still contstrained by the limits of aero.
Fine, have it your way. AoA-limiter it is.
I’ve read different article on several occation that the phrase G-limiter was used, no big deal..
Most modern fighters uses G-command system in pitch, a certain column position commands a certain G. + AOA Limiter for envelope protection.
below corner speed AOA-Limiter functions essentially as a G-limiter. above it the math and engineering gets little tricky, as your aero can pull more than your structure can stand.
@haavarla,
what I am trying to get at is how the whole process of either add or removing aerodynamic surfaces would look like from a engineering perspective.
Yes Yaw Damping to improve DR is part of FCS, it used to be like those mentioned a seperate system in addition to a carefully designed mechanical system but right now modern fbw FCS took over that function.
btw, Yaw Damping in no way would replace ventral fins. functionally different.
Canards are for nice pitching moment control at high AOA and for those nice coupled effects on the main wing and the big nice vorticies they generate. and trim drag… etc etc.
@haavarla
“Obligatory@
Actual it is in all three axes of an airplane flight path.
So thats Bank(slide), Yaw and Pitch.
But mostly it is Pitch and bank.”
Yaw Damper is the first peice of Feedback control engineers ever put into airplanes to modify its handling characteristics.
Ventral Fins are Both High Mach and Low Speed (high AOA) Directional Stability,
Since J-20 can’t do a paddle walk (I think) and its undersized full moving rudder is clearly gets shielded in high AOAs.
either way they have to put in more control surface, (either a bigger rudder or ventral fins) so they went for ventral fins, whats the big deal? I like them, and I think they are a sensible solution to the problem. for the given gain in stability they prob evaluated all options and ventral fins is the lesser of evils. (fin area)
The only way that those ventral fins would be gone in some future date would be that, during flight test, they discovered that the aerodynamic predictions from wind tunnel and cfds are over predicting the problem, and they can get away with not having the fins. then they would have to accept a schedule hit to redesign to get those fins off. and re-do some flight tests.
cost $$$ regardless for future performance gains.
It has never happened even when Pakistan was broken into 2 in 71…China will stay out of it as usual.
past behavior is usually good indication of future actions.
usually is not certainty.
blue;
The entire assembly line is dependent on Chinese supplies of raw material and systems, not to mention Russian engines. Even once production stabilizes, many key systems will continue to be sourced from China. Pakistan simply does not have the economic wherewithal to make every tiny screw inhouse. So, FC-1 is hardly a juche fighter which can be made locally in quantity, if supplies are cut off.
it is somewhere between a overhaul facility and a full-scale manufacturing plant. this airplane is mostly traditional metal, the idea was to shift most manufacturing to PAK once chinese suppliers are doe.
And cheap? How cheap is cheap exactly…any fighter like the FC-1/JF-17 is not really cheap, especially factoring in operating costs. Plus, missiles will run out, aviation fuel won’t be available.
cheaper than F-16 and J-10;
Plus, you were using quality in a relative context, comparing vis a vis the neighbouring air arm, and quite frankly, the IAF would not buy into your views, they would procure something more capable.
my “Quality ” is always narrowly defined as “per requirement”.
schedule cost quality.
if you can get 2 right you are a success.Only if the PAF is phenomenally lucky. The Indian’s will definitely go for the PAFs AWACs, their limited number of tankers, and all the supporting assets the cheap little fighter requires to sustain a defense against the more expensive, heavier fighters.
Yes but at what cost? this is where PAF can complicate their opponent’s planning. back in the days, Soviet Union can always over power those Nordic Neutrals’s military forces. but the costs is what made them think twice. at least that ‘s the idea.The J-11 is doubtful, thanks to its Russian antecedents, and the J-10, well that would have been better, at least if the PRC was willing to fund it. The FC-1 is simply not good enough to actually give the IAF pause or buy the PAF breathing space.
J-11B now is 100% MIC. including engines. actually it has less reliance on Russians vs J10, as J-10 still relies on Russian AL-31FN in current version)FC-1 was always meant to be quantity side of the hi-low mix, something that can dog fight and shoot BVRs.
If they feel like splurging actually they can make it into a poor man’s Gripen.
By which time, the fight would have ended. Pilots and maintenance personnel can’t retrain for a new type within hours or days, at least not to the level that they are proficient with it. The PRC stayed out of the ’71 conflict, and ’99 one. They’ll sit out any other one as well. They even refused participation in the Gwadar port project.
with chinese pilots and crews? just a wild guess.rumor has it that in ’99 PRC opened up their radar stations up there as a early warning net for PAF.
pure rumor ofcourse.Gwadar port will have a chinese operator now.
Depends on your definition of quality…the IAF would never have taken those planes, and its a fact but the PAF may have no other options and its their call. And as regards “on schedule”, we’re all sufficiently versed with the “history” of the FC-1 project. The Indian side would have been more concerned if the PAF got similar numbers of the J-11 or even the J-10 rather than the JF-17, which to be honest, though a leap forward from the increasingly ancient Mirage 3/5’s is not really in the class of any of the Indian Air Force’s recent acquisitions (which will increasingly dominate its force structure) and I daresay, even the MiG-29 upgrade (and the in procurement Mirage 2000 one).
Quality means what was in the requirements was met.
FC-1 is what PAF wanted. a cheap defensive fighter that PAF can build in quantity locally if outside supplies got cut by politics.
and they got it.
with a good networked AWAC support and good AAMs even a cheap little fighter can cost the attacker alot.
IAF may have the numbers and quality on paper. but PAF can put up a costly fight with their setup.
J-10 or J-11 would be nice, but FC-1 is their basic building block to their plan.
plus, if the fight gets really bad they can always ask china to ferry over J-10s
No no , no no.
Dont change your tack now.
You disdainfully claimed that since the full envelope in not cleared then IOC cannot be done/IOC has no value.Which is totally wrong.That is not how flight testing is done.In fact it is rare that at IOC any military aircraft would have its full flight envelope.
as expected,
I don’t think you understood the technical content of my previous post.
try again with layman’s language.
If you change your primary structure by that much, (which you have to do if you want to shave 1 ton out of a 7 ton structure), you have to re-do alot of test and analysis and design. this has nothing to do with envelope expansion etc, as far as structure goes it would be almost a new airplane. as a consequence core of FCS SW will have to change to deal with these structure changes. (google those big words and think about what they mean) and those test that was done with a different structure, so alot of test items you have to almost start from zero. that means schedule slip, that means costs goes up.
and,
There are IOCs and there are IOCs. It is mere a name.
technical content is what matters.