kiwinopalIt has a trailing edge and a tip is basicly a wing but in small scale any wing generates downwash at the end of the trailing edge and tip as the difference of pressure creates a balance. The LEVCON is just a mere flap it has no trailing edge, the MiG-29 wing only has downwash at its trailing edge and tip but not at the LERX.
kiwinopalDid you even bother to read what has been written?
I will not waste time repeating myself. Go read the part about how long it will take Mexico to build up anything close to the manufacturing capacity it will take to replace Chinese output. Hell, have you even considered the size and population of China compared to Mexico? Even if every Mexican went and worked in a factor Mexico still could not hope to cover Chinese output.
Let me guess, most if not all of your economic knowledge comes from someone else and you are just repeating what has been told to you? And it doesn’t come from a reputable or impartial source. Read some current and reputable articles. Chinese salaries have outstripped Vietnamese salaries long ago and Chinese companies are increasingly competing on quality as well as price.
Yet more mickey mouse economics. Just because there are 1 billion Indians does not mean India has the same abilities as China. Indian manufacturing capacity is incomparable to China’s.
Ah yes, the negative stereotypes never cease. :rolleyes: Contrary to what you think, China has objectives beyond merely economics and Taiwan is one of the core interests China will throw economic growth out the window for.
China will not invade because time is on China’s side and there is a very good chance that Taiwan will voluntarily reunify with the mainland in the future so why destroy what you could get intact?
But if Taiwan does something that crosses China’s red line, such as declaring independence or seeking nuclear weapons, China will not hesitate to take the island by force. Doubt that at your peril.
Man the question is not make a mexico China competion comparation because simply the thread is not for that, but understand China has nothing to win by going to war for Taiwan, you overstimate china`s capabilities to absorb embargos and the economic effects of the Westen disapproval of an invasion.
People think the US does not sell weapons to Taiwan for fear of China, the reality is they simply are not affraid but they see no point in hurting the Chinese national rethoric directed for internal consuption of china the great power.
China once it stops selling goods will have so much internal problems that all the reserves it has will be used to buy food.
without sales you have to spend and in what they will buy is food, in fact that will be good for South america, Australia, New Zealand and most emerging markets.
A US free of Chinese competition will be better for most nations and it won`t take decades as you claim, just with India, Mexico and latin america and most nations of Africa and Asia can easily replace China.
China has more to lose, because if China stops western investment from leaving China it will get even harder to sell in Europe and the US.
So in few words Taiwan might have obsolte F-16s but still has economic clout to stop China.
kiwinopalIts amazing how many people with obvious zero economic knowledge are trying to talk about economics with the most absurd notions. :rolleyes:
Any Mexico and Brazil has several trillion dollars that could be instantaneously transformed into manufacturing capacity equaling China’s total export output to the US? And in case you haven’t noticed, the argument was never about China stopping selling to the US. I was pointing out how absolutely stupid it is to think that the US has the option to simply stop buying from China at the drop of the hat.
As you say, China is not irreplaceable. But replacement will take decades and a sudden cessation of Chinese exports will hurt everyone, a lot. Is the western public and government willing or able to make such scarifies without a direct threat to their own countries? Highly doubtful.
A war in the straits will hurt China enormously. But hardly to the degree of total implosion the likes of Madrat seem to have wet dreams about.
No i have knowledge, you are using a ilogical concept, China will be the first hurt by not selling to the US, Mexico has the ability to attract enough investment to supply the US market, China only has cheaper salaries which has forced Mexico to go a level up in the type of manufactures it sells to the US, most people think China is the only one trying to sell their products but that is not true, for China the US market is primordial if it wants to at least keep the demands of the chinese population for jobs.
China and the US won`t do things that will affect their economies and remember India has the same level to compete with China in low cost products
China won`t go to war if it affects its economy. Invading Taiwan will have more disadvantages than advantages, that is the reason even having a more powerful military than Taiwan does not invade it.
kiwinopali have proof, the yakolev as the jsf have their canards at the same level of the wing niether above or below the wing, the T-50 anf F-22 also have their tailplanes and wings at the same level
Seen from front view the F-22 and T-50 hide their tailplanes with the wing and seen by a lateral view have perfect planforming
The newest swedish concept has the canad above wing level because that is the best position for performance so the vortices are above the wing but in terms of stealth is not the best because from frontal view it has two reflecting surfaces instead of one like in the F-22 and T-50.
kiwinopaleven? in 150km is most modern canard is unseen by another fighter. (RCS around 0,1m2)
An S-band AESA AEW will see it in a long distance..
with external weapons your statement is utterly wrong no eurocanard will have that carrying external weapons
kiwinopaland? whats the big scope? ever thinked about next gen stealth?
In the future, europe, china, korea seems to go the canard way for stealth fighters… and for them, is seems to work?
PS. and yes the designs are probably tested in RCS facilities..
The swedish fighter already compromised more stealth by moving the canard above wing level, the Korean fighter does not, by the way Russia and the US had stealth fighters with canards but they drop them
why?
reasons simple the canard has more disadvantages when stealth is applied, their performance will be far more degraded
kiwinopalGripen is second in WLO, if you want to pay for it. Thats all right with me.
If you want to fight T-50, i would get the meteor on a 4 gen fighter as LO as possible and a last gen IRST and good datalinks. the stated RCS isnt WLO, just LO for T-50. To be on the safe side, i would use the best possible tactics for my craft. Gripen NG and Rafale last gen fits that bill, probably Eurofighter as well. Dont forget you probably get more 4 gen fighters than 5 gen for the same bill.F-16, if you want an earlier design with big RCS for the same price.
The T-50 will be armed with longer range BVR missiles than meteor and at 150km the T-50 will be unseen, at BVR the Rafale can not even see the F-22;)
kiwinopalKiwinopal, I like arguing with you, but trying to have a discussion is like banging your head against the wall.
All sorts of forum members have brought up valid points but you keep disregarding them and repeating your same points over and over hoping that eventually we’ll believe them also. ..They weren’t true the first time you said them, and never will be…
As to the superiority of the LERX/wing/tailplane as exemplified by the F-16 over a canard/delta design, actually never mind the canard, a simple unstable delta very comparable to the F-16, the F-16XL. In this case we are comparing similar aircraft with same engines, not to the Mirage2000, which while a fine aircraft is underpowered. So, you tell me which is superior. Which supercruises? Which has longer range? Which has lower RCS? Which has a more efficient design?
If you answered the F-16XL them maybe you are finally seeing the light. If you answered the standard F-16, you are wrong again and always will be !!!
Please all of these points you are claiming are not going along the latest stealth flying fighters like the T-50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx1Z4KJCpOU
See tell me where do you see a canard in this fighter? i see a LEVCON i see extensive fuselage wing blending with planforming, tailplanes in fact it looks like a Su-27 just faceted and with planforming and it has LERXes that droop= LEVCON
If i was wrong as you say then this aircraft should have a delta wing and canards but they made a LEVCON to reduce drag and allow for planforming, from a top view the T-50 Follows the F-22 not the Eurofighter niether the Rafale
Remember the LEVCON does not produce downwash as a canard does and LERXes also do not make any downwash
see these two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-xpD-2FAWA
No canards and yes tailplanes and stealth
kiwinopalwhy to buy a Gripen if you can buy different F-16s variants which can be upgraded? see Chile no need to buy Gripens just old F-16s and a few new ones and that is enough, face it most Gripen customers are political too, want to join NATO? buy Gripens; but Poland shows get more MiG-29s and a few new F-16s and you get almost the same, Rumania is the same.
If you want to face the T-50 threat you need F-35s at least or your own stealth fighter and that is what Japan wants to do.
The Gripen is seen as the second best option to the F-35 or F-22.
it means you want stealth not canards, the F-22 and F-35 show that
kiwinopalThis topic is quit funny most people think if the US is involved in a war with China, the Chinese can destroy even a carrier without the risk of nuclear war, China won`t invade Taiwan if the US get involved militarily, why? nuclear war means all are losers, there is no way China can even touch an american carrier the americans have close to 12 big ones and others with harriers and sinking one will be a political mistake of huge proportions.
China only can take Taiwan if the US promises not to help Taiwan and do not get involved besides not doing an embargo on Chinese products and calling the Europeans and Japanese to accept it and not embargo Chinese products.
This is not going to happen at least now.
China can not take taiwan without aproval from the west in fact even from Russia since an invasion of Taiwan will mean a threat to russia due to the Russian-Chinese border dispute and will send alarm bells to India, South Korea and Japan, most nations in the world are against China taking Taiwan and having an expansionist policy.
That is stronger that selling F-16s to Taiwan
kiwinopalThe latest Romanian selection of F-16 is entirely political. The prime minister has said so.
pitted vs a Gripen it is not, in terms of performance, with modern weapons and avionics such as HMS, radars, AIM-9Xs and new engines no way it is political, it only shows the Eurocanards are excessively expensive and just are not enough to beat the early vintage F-16s in markets and F-22 and T-50s in capability.
kiwinopalso politics have no say in the matter?
So what about the Rafale in Brazil? is not political too? do you know that the brazilian pilots prefer the Su-35?
Is Poland also Political? what about India, if the Eurocanards are better why can not beat the MiG-29/MiG-35?
what about South Korea, Israel, greece? or all the F-16 customers?
Thinking an aircraft with canards is better than one with tailplanes is the common idea of fans, when you go to facts you see with HMS, Python Vs, IRIS-Ts, ASRAAMs and better STR in F-16s you can easily beat the Gripen, specially with a fighter which has a better export oriented support.
Do you know the Eurofighter was deemed inferior in many ways in Germany to the MiG-29s without most avionics early in its carreer? was not political to put it into production specially when modern MiG-29s can include the latest weapons, engines and have better STRs?
A MiG-35 armed with the latest generation weapons or a F-16 will beat the Eurocanards any where in the world for markets, only the F-35 and T-50 will change that.
kiwinopalWell, to be honest, American people know little (or nothing) about most countries in the world – but that didn’t prevent the US military to wage war against / over / for a lot of those countries since WW2.
Whenever debating about a possible US-China conflict over Taiwan, one needs to look at the economic aspects first, than the political and military ones. And that is the reason why I too believe the US won’t defend Taiwan, it’s too risky from the economical point of view.
Just for example, China has the largest US dollar reserves in the world, imagine what would happen if they flood the currency market with dollars after the US Navy intervenes in the Taiwan strait…
I do not understand why people say China dumping the dollar will affect the US economy, if that is true then China loses its american market and the value of its reserves, no one uses the gold standard these days.
For the US defend Taiwan has sense only if its affect international trading.
The Chinese by attacking Taiwan will lose the Japanese, European and American markets right away besides Latin american ones.
The Chinese are in need of the markets that can sustain their growth, by doing war and invading taiwan they are shooting themselves in the foot, losing those markets means unrest in China and social discomfort that can lead to further political fragmentation of the Chinese nation.
The only possible way for China to retake Taiwan is by the US unwilling to defend it, that only can happen if the US has something to gain or it is politically unwilling to do it due to social unrest in the US.
At the moment those conditions do not exist, and the chinese will remain buying US debt as long as they can sell goods and support their export oriented economy.
The first nation to suffer if the US economy falls will be China and this can be proven by the fact in 2009 the exports value to the US were lower than in 2008, the chinese need american wealth to at least give some rest to an overpopulated nation that adds several dozen million people every year to the job market.
One of the biggest mistakes of Mao was not controlling Chinese population growth.
Taiwan is wealthy but still China is a country of poor.
It is not F-16s that defend Taiwan, but the fear that war will collapse the Chinese economy.
for the Chinese their J-10s, Surface to Surface Missiles and weapons are just a way of bluffing.
kiwinopalI did not get things wrong you are simply arguing without knowing.
LERXes are wings in fact a delta wing just merged with a lower swept wing making for a compound wing.
They do bring the center of lift of the lower swept wing forward thus making the aircraft less susceptible to supersonic center of lift shifts in the same way a canard does
They also generate vortices that re energize the wing.
Saying they do not affect the tailplanes also show you do not know what are you saying, in the Su-27 the vortices through hysteresis affect the longitudinal stability of the tailplane, in the Su-27 making the aircraft stable at high AoA and allowing for a tail down force.
if it is true LERXes can render an aircraft unstable at pitch at high AoA, by 1987 the Russians found the way to make the Flanker stable at 120 deg of AoA.
Fact The LERXed tail combination allows for the Cobra in the Su-27
By the Way the concept of fuselage lift is quit important in the MiG-29 close to 40% of lift is generated by the wing-fuselage blending and the same is in the F-16 and Su-27, and Sukhoi has repeated it in the T-50
Canards are also smaller because they kill lift, the ideal canard for lift at high AoA is a big low aspect canard but this type of canard also kills wing lift at level flight and poses problems of stability due to high pitch up forces, the only jet fighter to have this type is the Viggen which is stable longitudinally.
kiwinopalEven with no TVC, Euro-Typhoon still obtained somewhat supeority to F-22. This is the most important keypoint.
Tialless is not an erea we are talking about, don’t conceal behind tailless, we bet on all-moving fore-surface vs all-moving tail surface, or partial-moving fore-surface vs partial-moving tail-surface.:diablo:
Which times have you made such error to put unstable and stable in same comparison?
No-position respondence will be ignored:cool::diablo:
The so called better ITR of the Eurofighter sounds more like a commercial ploy than a reality, i am sure with max weapons load the Eurofighter has worse performance than a F-22 in ITR because of ist draggy weapons carriage thus negating its supercruising agility at Mach 1.6, at that speed the Eurofighter is at afterburning settings meaning thrust difficulties and the unlikeliness of such statement
Sign In
