Page 33 – Key Publishing

i.e.

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,076 total)

← 1 2 3 … 32 33 34 … 70 71 72 →

Author

Posts
May 8, 2011 at 7:33 pm in reply to: Chinese Version of E-2 #2348045

i.e.
Participant

wow, they would copy such a crappy design.

You mean E-2?

May 8, 2011 at 7:31 pm in reply to: J-15 for Russia? #2348048

i.e.
Participant

To those who blabber about industrial espionage and buying blue prints etc trying to discredit chinese effort:

Sure, Chinese did some of that. but the point is even if they did all of those that would not garantee a successful product.

as far as I can tell, J-15 has new structure, flight controls, and new avionics package. To design a new flight control, they had to have good aero- and structure data. RUssians as far as I knew never sold any thing like that to Chinese. They had to stick this thing in Wind tunnels and in CFDs and rework it from pretty much ground up.

In another word, sure you can buy blue prints (btw original contract for J-11 calls for blue prints) , sure, or you can steal some bits of data, but you can’t get the entire data package that makes up the analysis that goes into the airplane.

To wave off chinese progress on industrial espionage and buying blue prints really betrays some of commentator’s utter lack of experience in aeronautic industry.

May 8, 2011 at 7:23 pm in reply to: J-15 for Russia? #2348051

i.e.
Participant

Incorrect.Its the american companies who assemble american products in american factories located on chinese soil and sell it to americans.

you have no idea how it works do you?

American companies rarely opens up full scale plant in china to supply US, instead they relies on a host of companies to supply them technical solutions for their specs.

May 6, 2011 at 7:47 pm in reply to: Chinese Version of E-2 #2349736

i.e.
Participant

Very likely:D

http://lt.cjdby.net/redirect.php?goto=findpost&ptid=1130526&pid=29165157&fromuid=285557

new… everything. If they still try to call it an Y-7 Derivative then those Commies are shameless!

…

from what I gathered, 14th and 38th Institute is in competition again with the radar.
airplane platform is the nailed down as a single supplier from Shangxi.

AESA rotating array.

May 6, 2011 at 4:07 am in reply to: Eurocanards vs J-20 and J-10B #2350177

i.e.
Participant

5th gen IRST/EODAS might change the defination of BVR and WVR a bit though…

5th would have more advantages in tracking and targeting passively, optical or EM wise

if you can spot enemy first, and moves faster, you’ll have the initiative on whether/when/where to attack

Yeah I was lamenting the samething overthere in SDF.

a EODAS system coupled with low observable platform,
datalinks
an optically guided medium range missile. like a IRST mounted on nose of a PL-12/AMRAAM/R-77.

May 6, 2011 at 4:01 am in reply to: Chinese Version of E-2 #2350179

i.e.
Participant

With the lack of dihedral of the horizontal stabilizer and larger radome pylon,it looks like the Yak-44E,or a version of it.Be great to see that project finally see the light of day.

yak-44E had 2 instead of 4 Vertical fins.

…

Oh god that Anhedral wing, don’t tell me they really moded a Y-7.

May 6, 2011 at 4:00 am in reply to: Chinese Version of E-2 #2350181

i.e.
Participant

wonder what radar this thing carry.
Radom is too thin to carry a version off KJ-2000.

AN/APY-9 from Hawkeye-D?

May 5, 2011 at 9:12 pm in reply to: Eurocanards vs J-20 and J-10B #2350448

i.e.
Participant

J-10B…
depends on how much money they want to spend on it.
(WS-15, new radar/Jammer, RCS reduction)
can be pretty competitive.

Believe or not vanilla J-10A’s design was heavily weighted towards an interceptor/dogfighter. carrying 2 PL-12, and 2 PL-8 and dash in and out with help of CGI and AWACS.

May 5, 2011 at 8:55 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2350455

i.e.
Participant

For a slim, folding fin missile? Look at how slim the ASRAAM looks on a Typhoon:
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_Eurofighter_RAF_CAP_ASRAAM_Meteor_lg.jpg
To me, the J-20 sidebay looks large enough to hold at least two similarly sized IR-missiles. I’d be surprised if we see current PL-9 models to be used when the J-20 goes operational.

just thinking about same thing.

May 5, 2011 at 8:54 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2350458

i.e.
Participant

getting more and more interesting

wonder what fold out mechanism they would have for the side bay. if they do it right they might be able to squeeze 2 missiles inside .

But I doubt short range -IR missile is that critical.
If fight gets in that stage the game is lost anyways.

May 5, 2011 at 8:43 pm in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2350497

i.e.
Participant

flew again today, for quite a long time
with a few low passes while retracting/droping landing gear

what a beast.
haven’t seen this one yet.

May 3, 2011 at 9:28 pm in reply to: Two-stage Supersonic ALCM? #1797663

i.e.
Participant

Actually One of the Chinese AShCM has taht concept, except in terminal stage it is a solid rocket engine that seperate the 2nd stage.

In the other extreme spectrum, one of the AshBM concept was to release SRAM missile(s) as pay load by a solid rocket missile with a a rather flat trajectory.

May 3, 2011 at 3:34 am in reply to: J-20 Black Eagle – Part 5 #2352587

i.e.
Participant

Haha j-20 with a green nose… It’s not put of the question for the plaaf to give this plane a paint scheme so bad it makes the plane itself look cr*p… Thats how bad their taste is.

Let’s hold out hope they will give this plane the bad ass paint job it deserves

Haters.

Any aviation fan worth his salt would love those classic lines.

May 1, 2011 at 9:58 pm in reply to: China may have flown the J-18 "Red Eagle" #2353564

i.e.
Participant

I believe these modifications, at least the last 2, could have been easily carried out by Chinese in a very short time. Now lets see the reasons why J-10 might not have been considered for naval operations. Low thrust weight ratio is what i can think of for one. Maybe high landing and take off speed for another. Can anyone think of anything else ?

vanilla J-10 has pretty decent loaded T/W ratio compare to at least 2 out of 3 of your converted land fighters. plus its low speed characteristics and high AOA capability is very impressive. Carrier fighters need more low speed characteristics (stall speed, stall characteristics, etc) then high T/W ratio.

It has a fairly good flight control system include what I tell a good alpha protection system, therefore theoretically if they wanted they could squeeze the every last knot out of its low speed. If they want to go further they can increase the span a bit and trade more J-10’s “high speed dash” for low speed side.

anyways I don;t see why they can’t make it out of a carrier fighter.

If J-10 navalized version never makes onto the carrier….
couple of years from now when everything started to leak out slowly I can already see CAC’s J-10 carrier fighter proposal being part of curios of aviation history.

April 29, 2011 at 8:43 pm in reply to: China may have flown the J-18 "Red Eagle" #2354547

i.e.
Participant

That again sounds mysterious and more than interesting !

Do You have any info on this “navalized J-11 by SAC” ? Was it an indigenious approach to develop a carrier capable version out of the Flanker before a T-10K was obtained via Ukraina ?? .. or was it a “navalized J-11” based on the original J-11 ? :diablo:

Thanks in advance,
Deino

Or It could be pure rumors. :rolleyes:
Author

Posts

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,076 total)

← 1 2 3 … 32 33 34 … 70 71 72 →