PinkoIt is my understanding that damage was mainly to the helicopter and the flight deck due to fire (which is where a crane is located, on port not starboard side). If so, this suggests an above deck explosion, rather than an actual hit on the hull (proximity fuze?). I think fires was the main problem after the explosion (much like it was with previous AShM hits e.g. Sheffield, Coventry, Stark etc)
The official Israeli investigation says” The C-802 missile that struck the Hanit actually exploded after hitting a railing at the rear of the ship and did not penetrate the aft deck.”
PinkoThere’re still differences in between Stark & Hanit cases.
According to a U.S. Navy after-action report from June 1987, the SPS-49 Air search radar on Stark was switched on only six minutes prior to the attack and did not establish a continuous, real-time track of the launching Mirage F1 aircraft until the first Exocet missile actually struck the ship. Furthermore, the Stark was sailing in the international water compared to the Hanit was operating in a water deemed to be hostile.
PinkoIts an interesting observation Torpedo….nothing more than coincidence and verification of what Unicorn says in that even the worlds finest defensive systems are prone to failure if no-one remembers to switch them on!.
Perhaps you may wish to add one more clause into the report to make it perfect, besides the usual blame of the man forgetting to switch on something. ( for me, I can’t recall when I forgot to unlock my rifle in a simulated fighting, let alone the real one of course).
The report said the SAAR V’s ADS only has 20 seconds to respond, that’s what the early warning time the air search radar can give. Maybe you also need highlight the crew forgot to switch on the VSR as well and perhaps the radar operator happened to receive a phone call and left the screen although the gun fighting cracks all around?
Another interesting observation is that no vessel, in the Falklands conflict, that commenced defensive softkill procedures was hit by an AM39. We have the anecdotal evidence therefore that 3 vessels have been hit that took no countermeasures and, at least, 2 vessels that did employ defensive measures that have defeated similar missiles. Pattern emerging perhaps?:)
That only works on condition your 3D radar finds the target 1st or it will just silently ruin the glory of one’s proud boat.
PinkoI was under the impression that Chinese avionics would be fitted on the first batch of JF-17s? Now you have J-10s fully integrated and tested with avionics and weapons and Pakistan wants western avionics on them? You will have to add a few more years to full integrate the system with weapons and test them. This is very unflattering for China and also means that the FC-1s would not be getting Chinese avionics afterall.
This is not the first time I’ve heard Pakistan unimpressed with Chinese aircraft and technology. The few (not many) officers from Pakistan I’ve met, have nothing nice to say about them. Explains their F-16 obessesion. The J-10 on paper, could have met the requirements of both the JF-17 and F-16C. One type instead of three means lesser maintenance and logistical headaches.
For those of you still spouting the glass cockpit of the FC-1 as a great advancement in avionics, get real. The Brazilian F-5 upgrade has the same if not a better cockpit.
Whether this is discrimination, inferiority complex or factually justified by unsatisfactory performance of Chinese tech, is up for debate. But there is one area which I don’t quite understand, namely the Grifo which is just a lightweight, low cost, low end radar and I’m sure the Chinese could offer a more powerful radar.
Pork, when people moved into 21 st century but surprising to see someone’s knowledge on JF-17 is still in the stone age.
Quick cure: wait no more and look no further, just spend a little from your pocket to buy our host’s latest AFM issue, which carried an exclusive interview on PAF’s Chief on JF-17. after equipping uself some basic JF-17, you can contribute more positive to this thread than the craps like: the FC-1s would not be getting Chinese avionics afterall.
Ya, we also see how rumors hull at working in the same old style: A met B, commented on C bad in a crap place like D with no time to go further because miss F is waiting etc etc.
Why just don’t spend a few dollars to buy a repute magazine with official comments form authorized PAF personnel with name and ranking and more?
PinkoI guess why AVIC1 had to selectJJ-7 as the high AoA/stall testbed is because the project started as early as in 1995, when there were no too many platforms to select from. The J-10 spin video was recorded in 2002 as the date and time is shown on the bottom of the screen. If it’s true, then it means we have to wait almost 4-5 years to see events happened long before.
PinkoAgreed, but in the video it lodks like a sequence showing the spin-recovery tests verformed by a model … which ended on the parachute, and the recoved aircraft in flight is the first prototype and not the same test made by the model.
Deino :confused:
If you watch closely, that one ended with parachute is just a general free flight model to demo delta wing’s spin characteristics, it may even not necessary to do a full circle of spin ( which also we never see), its mission is just to generate data to further flight simulation, the CFTE video narrator says CFTE using a JJ-7 as the testbed to do characteristic research on high AoA and stall. The concerned model is just the JJ-7 model to simulate delta winged JJ-7. It doesn’t have a canard & sharp cone nose. While you see the spin done byJ-10, the flying vehicle is with canard. IMO, it’s impossible to use a remote controlled model to simulate fully profiled flight characteristics of J-10 properly. which is with too many control surfaces, to be movable canards etc.
The whole ideal is 1st using free flight JJ-7 model to demo the JJ-7’s possible spin characteristics before you put men into the real JJ-7 stall/high AoA testbed. After evaluation done by gathering information from free flight JJ-7 model/flight simulating calculation/and wind tunnel is finished. The test pilot will fly the JJ-7 testbed to real demo flight. The generated data and expertise are used to define the aerodynamic design of J-10. then with all the previously research-done data, the J-10 is able to do a stun 3 circle spin in a mere seconds then recover finally, which gave the pass to J-10’s spin test.
James bond can use a nokia handphone to make BMW doing all kinds of stun, but we know it’s in the movie. If Chinese remote pilot can make a model fly in that way shown in the video, then also great, they are capable than double O 7, because the UAV is flying and you can expect how good the future UCAV made by Chinese are.
PinkoWhat did they say in the video? Was it a controlled spin? Or shows how the A/C recovers from a loss of control? That was a very violent looking spin……
It shows the J-10 undergoing high AoA/spin test in CFTE prior to its final certification. Remeber CFTE is the final stage certification body to let go the prodcution of prototypes.
The video was released in Aug, 2004, the test could be carried out earlier than that.
PinkoDeino, if China can make an unmanned model which can finish a controlled/complicated maneuver like the one shown in the video, then it’s more remarkable than a maneuver finished by a manned J-10. 😀
Count how many spins, an unmanned one can’t finish it then at the end still recovered the position.
PinkoCome here to provoke but only with one after another lies and spam, I never see anyone else can behave to such an extent. 🙁
Another slip of video from CFTE, actually this footage floated online for quite sometime already. It shows CFTE’s research on fighter jet’s high AOA and Post stall Maneuver. Do look out for some J-10’s stun at almost the end of this video( starting from 4’10” onwards) 😎 😎
PinkoThe news( in Chinese) is quoted below from one of the largest newspapers in Taiwan,
http://news.yam.com/chinatimes/politics/200703/20070319041536.html
in its report titled ROCAF intends to purchase AV8B to substitute F-16, the newspaper quoted high level military source as saying the premier interest for AV8B is no matter how good F-16 is, it will still be functionless without runway. It also reported that ROC army revised its Helicopter procurement from General type to Attack type plus General type with the same concern. The revision is a direct reflection of ROC desire to have an air projection power free of runway requirement. If say AV8B is still under consideration, the helicopter revision is materialized. We have seen ROC army purchased AH-64 in a rather sudden move. There’re other indications, for example, the ROCAF is looking for oil tankers which it hope can extend its fighter’s staying time in air. All scattered pieces of information if connected into a whole picture: it shows ROCAF is not confident in its runway facility that can support fix-wing fighters.
PinkoFrom the news that ROCAF considering AV-8B instead of F-16 C/Ds, one may get some clues that Taiwan really lacks of taking off option for its fighter jets.
If there’re enough roads that can practically act as runways, ROCAF would have never thought of using a much inferior AV-8B as its new batch of fighter order. Obviously, one can see the taking off ability and survivability are among the premier consideration criteria behind the intended AV-8B procurement.
PinkoYes, I met Huitong in other forums and what he said about the internal camera compartment is such arrangement let the J-8 finback flee at Mach 2 faster than the old one with external pod.
What a hit and run… thumb down for Huitong. 😀
PinkoThe background wording is Korean, not Japanese
PinkoFunniest thing is while Kommersant’s English version reported that PAF is going to get 36 J10s by end of 08, its Russian version, on the contrary, says the delivery will happen by the end of 2009. Even delivery time can be wrong, now I really doubt the Kommersant’s credibility maybe the reporter just put his wishful thought as official
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.html?docId=764200
В Федеральной службе по военно-техническому сотрудничеству Ъ отказались прокомментировать заявление пакистанского премьер-министра. Однако в ближайшее время правительству РФ предстоит вновь решать вопрос о возможности реэкспорта в Пакистан российских авиационных двигателей. По данным Ъ, Исламабад в ближайшее время подпишет с Пекином контракт на закупку 36 истребителей J-10 (известных также под названием FC-20), которые могут быть поставлены до конца 2009 года. По оценкам экспертов, весь контракт обойдется Пакистану в $1,5 млрд, причем на эти самолеты должны быть поставлены двигатели АЛ-31ФН производства ФГУП “ММП ‘Салют'”. Стоимость контракта на поставку моторов, по экспертным оценкам, составит не менее $164 млн.
If the delivery is to be done till end of 2009, I fully believe the exported 36 J10 will not be powered by any more Russian engine, it’s not up to Russian’s decision to export AL31FN to Pakistan or not but till that time, China is able to provide enough WS-10A for J-10. As the integration of WS-10A to J-10 is happening now, this year, the CAC is doing the job, and by 2009, it’s in time to supply J10 with Chinese developed WS-10A. Translation from a CAC senior official by Sinodefence:
J-10 Fighter to be Fitted with a Chinese-Made Engine
Chinese media reported on 15 April,07 that the Chengdu J-10 fighter was to be fitted with a indigenously-built engine “within this year”.
According to the report, a senior official of Chengdu-based 611 Aircraft Design Institute recently told the press that although the early production variant of the J-10 was fitted with a foreign-made engine for lower risk, the fighter would certainly be fitted with a Chinese indigenous engine, and this was likely to happen this year.
Currently the J-10 fighters in service with the PLA Air Force are powered by a Russian-made Lyulka-Saturn AL-31F turbofan engine. This means that the aircraft cannot be sold to a foreign customer without Russia’s consent. Such a limitation was reflected in the sale of another Chinese-made fighter FC-1/JF-17, which also uses the Russian-made engine. To avoid offending its biggest weapon buyer India, Russia was reluctant to allow the fighter powered by its RD93 engine to be exported to Pakistan, causing delays in the delivery of the fighter.
I don’t buy that PAF is going to let RD-93 incident happen the 2nd time.
Pinkowhere in ur report it is written that Russia is complaining about shrinking exports? . They could only make money out of Soviet Stocks since Chinese negotiate to the point where there is no profit to make out of it.
the rest of stuff u wrote does no make even sense. u should read the stories in Russian and babelfish to english and see what that correspond got from all sources.
Oh, You think your beloved Russia is happy about the shrinking share of their arm export to China. How you so sure Russians won’t have a say when they can’t export enough Su27SK kits as promised yet Chinese are deploying indigenized J11B– a Flanker resembled fighter jets with almost all Chinese content.
Wow, then what’s your point of saying “It would not be in China interest to export J-10 with AL-31. it will complete loss of confidence for exports to other countries.” When I correctly point out the WS-10A is still in the way of maturing? The turbofan engine is not to say the newer the better, the actual life span of such engine only can be determined by actual field usage. At the very beginning, you only can assign a predict life span of the engine, usual is much shorter than the actual one. the Ws-10a is already installed in J11B and we see more and more WS-10A powered J11B flying. Such J11B plus maybe some J10 platforms are forming the “small and advance” user segment of WS-10A. since WS-10a is only allowed to be used in such a “small advanced” user segment during the period from its design certificate year 2005 and probably end evaluation year 2008. how come it will power a fighter jet that is intended to be exported during the same period?!
Sign In
