right now china imports some 55% of its oil. but were talking about 480 million tons of oil a year. The whole of PLAN uses perhaps several million tons per year, at best. so the difference is really a drop in the bucket…
so there doesnt seem to be a clear answer to my question? since we have various examples of planes with both the pitot and outer strips? I was wondering if it was possible that radar tech was also a factor – as f16 e/f doesnt have a pitot tube and has a phased array. but then again – we also have russian planes where mig31 has a phased array and has a pitot, where su30mki has a phased array and has a pitot tube, but then su-35, also with a phased array, doesn’t. There just doesn’t seem to be a clear rule…
so why the switch from putting them inside the radomes to outside the radomes? Why is that more benefitial? why does a modern f15 still have them inside while a modern f16 has them outside, when they both feature more or less same radar technology?
a2a ucavs would cost a lot. just the engine would cost 5-8 million dollars. Radar and various other sensors would cost at least another 10 million. Software development for something like such a plane? a lot. airframe another 10 million, 20-30 million if specially designed and made to be LO. Various other systems would easely make the whole thing cost at least 50 million dollars, if not more. In today’s economy, at least.
If one wanted to strip down the whole concept to simpler engines, simple airframe, very little or no sensors and basically get a jet Reaper, it’d still cost 15-20 million dollars and it’d be more or less defenceless as it wouldn’t even know when to evade an incoming attack. and such an attack would be cheaper for the attacker as the other side would adapt to the new situation.
a2a ucavs may eventually come, but before that we’ll see a2g ucavs that are being demonstrated around the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-7xE2iw3Pg&feature=related
this is the video i meant to link.
that is a great video. also, it lead me to this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxfJRHRXi0A#t=12m38s where it said su27k took off from kuznetsov at 170 kph weighing 22 tons. So that is quite useful fact as one can calculate speeds as we know the take off distances, thrust, weight and thus accelleration.
On another note, there was another clip, i saw it on google videos some years ago, where it was quite evident su33 was carrying between 6 and 8 air to air missiles. It was an old film, color was faded, it was somewhat blurry, but still it was quite clear in what it showed. does anyone have a link for it?
Does anyone know if inner hardpoints on j10 are wired for weapons usage, or are they there primarely for tanks? I ask this as on f16 inner points don’t seem to be used for anything else but tanks. Then again, f16 has more hardpoints overall. Was a j10 in service (NOT a show model) shown carrying anything other than tanks on the inner stations?
Also, so far we know middle hardpoints on j10 can carry some 500-600 kg of weight. Do we have proof of them carrying more weight?
so there is no visible length difference between 500 and 1000 kg bombs? i ask that because the bombs in the pic are quite long – some 3,95 meters long in fact. can we even be sure the bombs on the pic are lt-2 and not some other lgb? we do know jh7s use different lgbs.
while they certainly look like LGBs, the image is kinda small and blurry. Is there a way to be absolutely certain those are guided ammunitions? Is there ANYTHING else in chinese bomb inventory that looks like that?
Plus, can one see a laser designator on the plane? Of course the target could be lased from someplace else, but it’d be nice if j10 selfdesignated it…
edit: oops, didn’t click the thumbnail. Yes, it’s evidently a LGB. Still, it’d prove more versatility if j10 selfdesignated it.
Any guesses as to what size those bombs were? Look like 1000 kg pieces to me.
well, with the current president likely to win another term, the defense spending is likely to remain low. i don’t believe argentina will be getting any new combat planes for the forseeable future. (until 2020)
as far as i could see from the few images, hq16 on 054a is hot launched. the army air defense variant does seem to be cold launched.
so basically, there are still no official figures given on the hq16? None of those links are really reputable sources, nor do they cite their own sources.
i’d appreciate a respected publication, link to a maker’s website or at least a photograph of an official brochure that corroborates the given info on the hq16.
while certainly SARH, it may also feature an autopilot and command guidance during cruise phase and use SARH only for terminal guidance. Point is, there is no way to tell. Everyhting on this missile, including stuff like ranges etc is just guesswork.
yep, it is designed to help scoop air. x35, as far as i recall, had a different solution, a two panel door positioned alogside the longitudinal axis. they changed that to this to get better airflow for takeoffs.