RyukyuRhymera good cheap light weight fighter?
how about instead of the F-20 or the F/A-50
brand new F-16As before all that weight got added?
it was a pretty good light fighter that was cheap.. and then it evolved into
a medium sized walrus with bumps all over it because it began doing roles that it originally wasn’t designed for.
If LM made an F-16 Lite, I think it’d do pretty well. Its already an agile aircraft that has pretty good (not as good as Gripen) operational costs.
RyukyuRhymerAll this talk over the potential of this S.American crisis turning into a “hot war” can be put to rest.
Uribe said sorry, Chavez says lets trade again.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/07/samerica.summit/index.html
RyukyuRhymerA company with close links to Beijing might be operating it, but China does not control it.
For example, see how long the canal will remain in Chinese hands if the PRC tries to prevent non-Chinese shipping from using it. On the other hand, if Uncle Sam decided to take control of the canal, there isn’t much China can do to stop it.
There is a big difference between ‘ownership’ and ‘control’ when strategic assets are concerned.
yeap, in fact from my searches, it seems that only “right-wing” American news sources mention those links in an attempt to play up the “China” threat.
RyukyuRhymerI know what the UK populations general thoughts on our military are, underfunded and over stretched with alot of old kit but what do the Russians think of their military?
Do they have any idea of what aircraft, their age and general state of readiness is being used by the Russian Air Force today?
my neighbor is Russian, a student in his early 20s. We talk about politics alot.. basically his thoughts are:
– Russian weapons are pretty good
– but many areas fell in decay during the 90s and it will take some time to replace some of their equipment
– there are stupid guys in the military who give a hard time to new recruits
– over all quite optimistic about how the Russian military will develop since the economy is picking up
RyukyuRhymerMan the Nuclear weapon in the US was developed by European scientist, Einstein, Openhiemer, Edward Teller, the helicopter by a russian Igor Sikorsky, the AC by Nicola Testla and the space program lead by a Nazi named Werner Von Braun so what?
the difference is, Einstein, Sikorsky, etc became Americans because they emigrated there. Kurt Tank travelled around and assisted/lead projects but he was still a German citizen and died in Germany.
RyukyuRhymeraren’t you that guy who got banned?
RyukyuRhymerWhich in it self is another projection. Janes don’t have exclusive access to the plane, Neither does combat aircraft or air force monthly.
These numbers is just guesstimated on F-16 stats.man I wish that when Gen. Pace asked to see J-10, Plaaf did show him. Then we wouldn’t have so many accusations now.
of course they are self projections as all the numbers are different. but until then, no one here has anything concrete.
RyukyuRhymerI see that the debate surrouding the size, weight and role of the J-10 is alive and well. It warms my heart to know that some things never change.
I am aware of only three published sources that most, if not all of the internet estimates projecting the size and weight of the J-10 can be traced back to:
– Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft
– An article in Combat Aircraft published in Nov 2006
– An article in Air Forces Monthly published in Feb 2007
[ATTACH]160643[/ATTACH]These three sources are widely divergent in their projections, reflecting just how little has been officially acknowledged regarding this airplane. The reasons for these differences, can be traced back to the different assumptions, and information available to each of the three publications.
The J-10 dimensions provided by Jane’s were copied directly from the Lavi, a much smaller airplane. For some reason, Jane’s has never attempted to update these values.
The weight projections provided by Jane’s, however, are a different matter. I have seen no explanation for where these weight estimates came from. In reviewing various articles from Jane’s Defence Weekly however, it has become apparent that Jane’s has received a number of status updates surrounding the J-10 over the past decade, supplied by Russian contractors who visited the Chengdu facility. It is possible that this was the source of their weight information.
The article that appeared in Combat Aircraft in Nov 2006 (Vol 7, No 9), was a dedicated review of the J-10. The dimensions were derived from photo analyses of images that had been leaked to the West, and the weight estimates were derived from an engineering projection based on the dimensions of the airplane.
An underlying assumption behind these weight estimates, however, was that the J-10 was a product of China’s “awakening” to the role of airpower in modern warfare, that occurred as a result of the 1991 Iraq War. In this conflict, it was the tactical air-to-ground capabilities of the US-led alliance, and not their air-to-air capabilities, that had a decisive impact on the outcome of the ground war. This conflict is widely credited with a renewed willingness on the part of the PLA to fund new aircraft and weapons for the PLA. Seen in this light, the J-10’s empty weight is projected to be in the neighborhood of 9730 kg.
The Air Forces Monthly article on the other hand (Feb 2007), was not dedicated to reviewing the J-10 at all, but was a survey of fighter procurement trends worldwide. No explanation was given for the size and weight estimates printed in this article, although some quarters who would prefer to see the J-10 as a purely air-to-air weapon have seized upon this publication to justify a much lower empty weight estimate of 8300 kg.
In the end, none of the available sources constitute an acknowledged, official value for the size and weight of this airplane. The truth surrounding the capabilities of the J-10 will likely not be revealed until the type enters the export market, and deliveries commence to buyers such as Pakistan.
thanks for putting up that chart. in anycase, based off those figures, it seems that the J-10 is definitely a tad longer than the F-16C.30 and a bit heavier in its empty weight
RyukyuRhymergarry:
where did you find information that the next US MBT will be around 40 tons? I’m trying to find it on google but found nothing.
RyukyuRhymer“Replica” in Japanese, would more likely be レプリカー (repurikaa)
quite simple yes, but lately in many cases, the Japanese prefer using a word derived from English or another European language over its Japanese or chinese-derived counterpart.
RyukyuRhymerHello from Japan,
The project is now called 心神 (Shin Shin). To put it simply, after the US refused to sell the F-22, there was more interest in this project.. but recently there have been some funding cut towards its development.
Quite honestly, in my opinion, this will not go beyond a tech demonstrator stage because building a 5th generation aircraft is simply too expensive for one country. But at the same time, Japan wants nothing but a 5th generation aircraft as its next type.
RyukyuRhymerhttp://armenianow.com/?action=viewArticle&AID=2808&CID=2753&IID=&lng=eng
I don’t really like how the article is written, strongly reeks of paranoia.
Azerbaijan is very much a secular stake and the Azeri’s aren’t as strong into their religion like their Middle Eastern counterparts.
Azerbaijan is becoming an important energy player in the world with its large oil reserves, has issues with Iran over the Caspian Sea, and has part of its territory no longer under its control.. it is only natural for them to purchase new aircraft to protect their interests. makes a good “low end” to their MiG-29s
RyukyuRhymerJ-10 definitely has better supersonic performance than flankers. Consider this, it’s stated to be able to fly at mach 2.0 under A2A configuration of 3 fuel tank + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8. Range limits amount of missions it can do and CAP time, but not if the combat itself.
Anyhow, the advantages of J-10 have been stated as better maneuverability (although flankers have edges in certain area). Depending whether you are in the J-10 or J-11 camp, you argue different things. The other advantage of J-10 is that it’s generally considered to be more stealthy than J-11 (aside from the smaller size). The advantages of J-11 is pretty obvious too – more space, larger radar and such.
Currently, J-11B supposedly has some newer toys like the new radar + new IRST and the holographic HUD. But we really don’t know how well SAC’s work in MMI and situation awareness compares to CAC. Who probably has far more experience in this. Of course, the upgraded J-10 is supposed to vastly improve the MMI and situation awareness + everything else.
That would be quite impressive, but if you don’t mind me asking, how do you know it is capable of that?
The J-10 will most likely have a lower RCS due to its smaller size but hanging stores on it as you probably know, will negate much of these advantages, especially with a big radar on the J-11 and J-11B
RyukyuRhymerThen the F-4 should have bashed the MiG-21s over Vietnam constantly. More range, more fuel, a (1960ies technology) radar at all, hey, we have a winner.
Fact is, in an unclear air engagement with lots of participants like friendly fighter bombers, friendly and unfriendly air defense systems and possibly everything poisoned by ECM, the winner will be the one that brings in most aircraft with best average information (see Bekaa Valley 1982). A long range missile shot won’t work. Bingo fuel is without relevance, one goes in and out. And if not, external tanks help a lot. When caught in daylight and 5000ft in a tricky situation, an F-22 might well lose against a pair of F-5Es or MiG-29A (provided they have comparable IR missile technology).
But it is not Vietnam anymore is it. Radars and the reliability of missiles have improved and American pilots in Vietnam also had certain restraints… although of course I’m speaking of real general terms and we don’t know how reliable Chinese weapons have progressed since the 70s.
RyukyuRhymerI don’t know the capabilities of the avionics in the J-10 or its range (and I think most people only have educated guesses on it), or the J-11B..
but in general, the J-11/Flanker, due to its large range and speed.. has the ability to dictate the engagement over a smaller aircraft with less fuel. In the case with the MiG-29 at least, a Flanker can simply bingo fuel the enemy.
I’m not too sure, but I believe that was the situation in Eritrea-Ethiopian war where the MiG-29s were operating at the extent of their range when facing opposing Su-27s. The larger aircraft will also have the larger radar and more room for counter measures while its down side will be the larger RCS.
Sign In
