totoroIt follows a very similar design idea and layout. Possibly going from S70 itself, under the pretext of “not fixing what is not broken”. Engineering wise it seems to be more derivative.
As for Mi17 question, one can assume chinese prefered cost/lifting power to cost/cabin space. Basically, they may’ve wanted more a flying crane, utility helicopter to lug around stuff rather than a bus ferrying soldiers around.
totoroEven completely disregarding the source credibility, operating jf17 for SaAF makes little to no sense. They’ve been happy for decades with operating large planes. While they did use smaller planes, like F5 in the 1980s and 1990s, they’ve replaced them with larger planes and seem content with that decision. They certainly seem to have enough money not to require a two tiered hi and low air force.
So, unless saudi air force desperately wants to increase the number of its squadrons/planes but for some reason doesn’t have money to do it with larger, more expensive planes, I really don’t see how it could be interested in JF17.
totoroa 2 engine light attack plane with wholly inadequate A2A defense,
inducting this 50 year ole into service in an otherwise modern air force.let me think about it
Though, in a parallel universe where someone bought the licence for Jaguar and reengined it with F125 (Honeywell actually has brochures on it for Indian reengine proposal. They claim it can be fit even though dimenions are much different from Jaguar’s original engine) – offering such a plane on the world market, complete with modern and modular avionics, could make it a very attractive and competitive option for many air forces. Either as primary (only) plane for smaller air forces, or as cheap striker for medium sized ones (like Poland?) Of course, such a parallel universe would also require no political pressure against such a competitor emerging, as well as an investor that doesn’t want to earn as much money as possible. (because if it did, then it’d rather invest those billions into something else, other than reviving Jaguar)
totoroallegedly the pakistan order for mi35 is for four airframes, going to special ops teams. They basically need a helicopter which would insert people on the ground and provide fire support if needed, at the same time. Mi35 is basically the only helicopter that can do that.
totoroThey’re complete plane minus the engine costs. i guess additional services and support is then always contracted with the lrip contract?
another issue: do long lead item contracts get counted with the lrip contracts?
Also, do later modifications of earlier lrip planes get counted with said earlier lrips for later accounting, so the total cost of previous lrips gets retroactively increased?
totoroAbove table, sadly, doesn’t explain the unaccounted contracted sums of money which appear to be something other than a finished (but engineless) plane.
totorofuture projected Sustainment cost for the lot in question or sustainment of all planes in service so far?
totoroSo lot 8 was contracted at 4.7 billion for 43 planes. Individual prices per plane variant were disclosed at 94, 105 and 114 million. It totalled to 4,3 billion. Which left 0,4 billion unaccounted for.
Then now for lot 9, 57 planes were contracted for 6.1 billion. At similar individual variant prices as above that amounts to 5,5 billion. Which leaves 0,6 billion unaccounted for.
Question is what are those unaccounted sums for? Are they not part of plane cost?
totorohttp://www.rusaviainsider.com/russo-chinese-aircraft-mockup-debuts-at-airshow-china/
Some new tidbits on sinorussian widebody airliner. 280 seats (unknown if single class or 2-3 class layout. Probably the latter) for base variant (of total 3 variants). Earlier this year there was also an article saying there’d be 260 to 280 seats.
While we don’t know if model shown is actually based on a true design, we can deduce its somewhere in between b767 and b787 in size, especially fuselage diameter. length wise it seems to be between 767 300 and 767-400.
Article mentions intention of using RR or GE engines and service entry by 2027.
totoromtow is often a flexible category, one of deliberate design decisions. One could modify planes like gripen or even tejas to achieve 19 tons of mtow. BUT in order to do it, one would need more runway for such take off weights and beefier landing gear (and possible other changes to accomodate larger landing gear). To have more practical use out of such mtow, such as using extra weight as weapons or fuel – one would probably need to strengten wing structure, add various tanks/bumps for extra fuel tanks and so on, larger flaps maybe. It all increases weight.
Basically, the reason why lavi could have such mtow is because it willingly accentuated extra weight (worse thrust/weight ratio, maneuverability, longer runway requirement) so it could haul more weapons over greater range. Gripen for example for designed as light defense fighter first and foremost. It didn’t want to sacrifice as many things for range/payload.
totorohttp://bmpd.livejournal.com/2212133.html
China ordered 224 D-30KP2 engines from Saturn in July 2016, worth about 660 million USD.
Since 2009 China has bought 463 D-30KP2 from Saturn.
Here’s one interpretation of what it means for the immediate future:
14 original il76, bought from russia decades ago. several second hand il76 (civilian variant) bought sometime by the 2000. (4 of which serve as awacs). 10 more second hand ones bought in recent few years via rosoboronexport. 3 il78 second hand il78 bought from ukraine. Total of 31 il76. Further il76 purchases unlikely due to y-20 coming online.
50-60 H6k produced to date, with production ongoing. One likely option would be to keep the production until all of PLAAF’s planes are replaced. That’d mean another 30ish or so airframes. Another option would be to have PLANAF’s planes replaced as well, eventually. If so, that’d mean another 30 or so planes. So total of some 90-120 h6k might be expected.
Y20 currently being produced, so far maybe 6-8 airframes, including prototypes.
Assuming old il76 and second hand il76 need at least one set of new engines, which seems likely as engines last less longer than such airframes – that’s 31*4 engines for il76 fleet.
plus the h6k fleet – 180 to 240 engines needed.
plus y20 produced so far – lets say 30 engines.
Plus one would need some sort of spare engine capacity. Western engines, as far as i can tell, are usually planned with 20 or percent extra engines. Maybe russian engines follow a different logic, with shorter lifespans, so i’ll guesstimate here with just 10% of extra engines.
Total could thus be: 124+180+30= 358 + 35 = ~366 if 90 h6k are planned.
if 120 h6k are planned that goes up to ~426.
Which suggests to me there may be more engines ordered in the future, even if y20 somehow switches to another engine really soon.
Or course, more realistically, y20 will go on being produced with d30kp2 for some more time, a few years at least. Which could easely require up to a 100 additional engines.
If we take into account that h6k are all brand new and will at one point in their life need engine replacement, even more future d30kp2 are going to be needed. Domestic engine variant of d30kp2 for just 200ish engines seems unlikely. And if ws18 was already ready – we wouldn’t see these d30kp2 ordered now. So i’d say ws18 engine plans were dropped at some point and h6k fleet may fly with russian made engines until they’re retired.
totoroWhat is the situation with SPP’s targeting pod development? Last i read, media wrote something about the pod still being tested in 2016. Is there any further info available? Could the testing finish in a few years? Might we expect a mass production contract before 2020?
totoroThis document is kinda official ish and it mentions planned abilities of various dod systems. There is explicit mention of third party targeting for amraam d.
totoroI am asking if there are official publications confirming or at least providing ample circumstantial evidence that amraam can be fired by plane A, upon which plane B (from 10-20 km behind plane A) keeps sending the missile course correction data while plane A breaks away immediately upon launch.
Phrases like ” It will probably allow a third party, such as another fighter, to take control of the missile, allowing the firing aircraft to break away directly after launch. ” from Jane’s are not really good enough. I am asking if a publication/statement by either maker or user of the missile/plane exists which says “handover capability exists”.
I think most people can agree technology for it existed even before a two way datalink, (after all, amraam can be launched without a lock on, and in theory it could be told beforehand to take into consideration course correction data by a same kind of datalink array as launch platform would have used) but that doesn’t necessarily mean such a requirement was deemed as mature enough or cost effective enough to actually be funded and integrated into existing platforms.
I am really not asking if it is possible, I am asking what publicly made indications of the capability existing are out there.
totoroThat is an Aim-120D capability. Navy has achieved IOC and started deployment of -120D on Super Hornets. F-15 C/D/E were next but can’t confirm if integration is complete. Doc says 2015:
http://www.dtic.mil/descriptivesum/Y2015/AirForce/0207163F_7_PB_2015.pdf
But which document/publication actually mentions such capability for AIM-120D? Also, should not planes themselves have some modifications, at least software wise, so they can use such a capability?
Sign In
