Size, among other things.

http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/news-channels/pla-daily-commentary/2013-01/28/content_5197556.htm

It’s amusing, the one time where the PLA gives some solid, and quite detailed numbers over the intended performance for a plane, and everyone ignores it.

now if only they revealed details for the J-20’s size :diablo:

BTW, there is a weapons procurement policy shift in the new incoming Korean government.

Basically, the new Korean government will fund what they consider to be anti-China weapons first, while cutting back or delaying on anti-North Korea weapons.

This means that the 800 km ballistic missiles(considered anti-China weapon) gets pushed forward to 2015 IOC(Recall that the deal to extend the range was agreed just 3 months ago) and 2 additional naval battle fleets consisting of only heavy destroyers and submarines are funded first, while the MRLS and the K2 tanks intended for North Korea gets funding cut.

The same principle is the reason why the Korean government would not spend a dime more than $9.5 billion on anti-NK weapon system like the F-X, while the anti-China weapons system KFX now gets the backing in the parliament.

FGFA is anti-China. The Indians are procuring it to counter the J-20. FGFA for Korea!

C-2 dimensions:
Wingspan: 44.4m
Length: 43.9m

Y-20 dimensions (disclosed from the PLA):
Wingspan: 47m
Length: 50m

And Il-76 dimensions just to compare:
Wingspan: 46.49m
Length: 50.5m

“Same” is measured in metrics of a few meters… (also, those drawings are not very accurate, using the numbers we’ve been given is a better tool)

Continuing your comparative example, Il-76 is the “same” size as C-2, but has an MTOW 30 tons greater than C-2, an effective payload 10 tons greater, despite being a design nearly 40 years older.

So I don’t see where the problem with Y-20s stated numbers lie.

of course all of those specs are taken assuming the aircraft is using WS-20s rather than D-30s. With D-30s it should only achieve vanilla Il-76 MTOW, maybe higher, with new construction methods and more modern aerodynamics.

—

If anything, the question shouldn’t be whether Y-20’s MTOW and payload are overstated, but whether C-2’s are understated imho. Looking at its dimensions and specs such as overall thrust, compared to the likes of existing planes like Il-76, you think it would be able to haul a much bigger load. Could intentional requirements by the JASDF limited the airframe’s ability to carry heavier loads. That is to say, the aircraft may have similar dimensions and volume to other cargo haulers but materials used in its construction, or the way its structure and airframe was designed means it cannot support a heavier weight?
I think that is a plausible explanation.

where did you hear the PLA disclosing the size?
not seen any solid evidence on whether its bigger or the same size as the C-2

So does the Hawk and the M-346, in sustained G KPP.

The gap between them and the T-50 would only grow, not narrow, as the T-50 wouldn’t need a structural modification to meet the sustained G KPP and meets them as is while the Hawk and the M-346 would grow costlier, heavier, and need thirstier engine to push heavier modified airframes.

BTW, Lockheed’s considering replacing the engine with F414, which would suggest that current T-50’s acceleration and supersonic speed wasn’t good enough and they would need even higher acceleration than what they have right now which was significantly better than what the M-346 and the Hawk have to begin with.

I was very critical of the Yak-130 and pro M-346.. if you don’t believe me you can ask Haarvarlie and TR1.
but these days my opinion has changed.. the Yak-130 is in service with two air forces and flying armed.. so much so that I think its more combat ready than both the M-346 and T-50.. for countries like Indonesia or Philippines that want something to fight with.. Yak-130 was the better choice

oh yeah, the Yak-130 doesn’t have to worry about the Americans vetoing radar or engine.

I think for the first time.. T-50 Golden Eagle is better than this.

Not so fast! Lets stick with the platform a bit longer shall we.

The RD-33MKM engines comes with a new FADEC and Hi/Low fuel pressure pump. This will make it better at fuel consumption and TBO.

Do you see the growt?

The Mig-29K have increased int fuel capacity over older versions.

Do you see the Growt?

The Russian Mig-29K might get an AESA radar. I’d say its a 60-40 chance for that.

Wouldn’t this be a growt?

I have looots of pics from my trip to MAKS 2011. Where the Mig-29K performed display with four wet tanks(DT)

But the F-16E can and does if the operator AF choose, go with extra wet tanks beside the CFT! There are no clear fasit on this topic. So your rant about the Mig-29K must carry wet tanks is a moot point.

you do realize that the original MiG-29 had an extreme deficiency with its range right? a growth in internal fuel capacity was an attempt to rectify this problem as the MiG-29 was a point defense fighter to begin with.
lots of talk about AESA on MiG-29 but when will its development be completed? the version used in the MMRCA trials seemed to disappoint the Injuns. What you are pointing out is indeed growth but fail to see how this puts it over the F-16’s growth. The only thing I concede is that the 29 certainly should have more thrust coming out of two engines than the F-16s single glowing hole but then again the 29 is also heavier and larger.

Article By Piotr Butowski.

Also, the Indian’s Mig-29K uses the RD-33MK which rates 9kgf Wet thrust.
Compaired to the baseline RD-33 rated 8.3kgf.
And the Indian Mig-29UPG upgrade has the RD-33 M3 series.

“RSK Mig has recently ordered the Latest Klimov RD-33MKM turbofan engines rated at 9.5kgf Wet thrust.”

Do you see the growt?

As for F-16E. Keep in mind the drag of those CFT! They nullify the extra thrust by far 😉

indeed F-16E is draggy no one doubts that.. but of course MiG-29 variants, even upgraded ones are never seen with out that center line tank.. and usually with 2 more side ones.. drag on drag baby.

so lets talk about avionics and weapons integration Viper vs 29K.. so how far along is the 29K?..

Lol. A super moot point really. Who cares as long as different Nations keep ordering Mig-29 in its different export versions. Both Russia and India will keep the Mig-29 series growing further, just wait and see 😉

yes I agree, MiG-29 could only grow because of the new Indian and Russian order.

now back to your claim.. so where are the numbers? I’m curious.