SchorschDo you understand that this means the pylon main attachment point would have to hold 1300 kg hanging 1m away ?
Add to this some decent G load and aerodynamic forces, and you’re likely to bend the wing or rip everything off.
No! Is possible, of course with some restrictions in flight envelope. But generally no problem. The wing is strong enough close to the root. Note that F-16 could carry nearly 2 tons at inner pylon.
SchorschWith AESA radar, 3D all aspect TVC engine (improved thrust, less smoky), 6000 hrs airframe life, custom avionics, effective RAM coatings and increased range and weapons carrying ability the Mig-35 is a clear winner …. but alas geopolitics might deny it a deserved victory.
Russia offers to develop an aircraft with the name MiG-35, which may have AESA radar and 3D-TVC. Of course only, if India pays for it and can wait until 2008 or 2009 until this is available. Russia does not have that technology available right now. It might be accessible because they have the knowledge, but it is not integrated (hugh difference).
India will have to pay for its development with some technical risk. the F-18 is virtually ready and could be delivered anytime. MAPO would offer you a MiG Beetle with 400W stereo sound as cabrio if you offer them to buy one.
SchorschJ-10 dosnt use a PESA right now, it uses a mechanically scanned array. It also dosnt use TVC right now, bith these are being worked on but there is no evidence that they have flown yet. The TVC is a direct purchase from Russia so it isnt even chinese.
Some 300 AL-31FN variants have been ordered, thats enough to keep the J-10 production line going until 2010 if the chinese maintain a J-10 output of 5 a month.
Please note that TVC is not just an modification you put in with the next heavy maintenance. It needs complete refinement of aircraft control laws to use it. Otherwise it is of little use. The only aircraft having a fully integrated TVC is the F-22 (and maybe this Suchoi for India, but don’t know it). All other aircraft (including MiG-29OVT) are prototypes in various stages of development (or with ceased development activities). The J-10 wasn’t spotted with too many external configurations, so one can see the stage of control law development.
A radar is nothing to just quick change, either. Mechanical antennas are good, too. AESA is not a magic thing. I would doubt that the J-10 radar has the capabilities of the present Eurofighter/Rafale radar. “Working on it” can be everything from 5 people to 500 people.
Don’t get fooled by press-releases, use common thinking!
Schorsch“BTW: the A400M has a top-speed very close to that of some jet-transporters.”
REALLY?????
When was the flight test that produced that speed?Until those tests are conducted, you really should use the words “planned to have a top speed”, “supposed to have”, or “designed to have”… as even with the modern techno-whiz-bang, “gee whiz aren’t these CAD programs great we don’t need any real-world testing”, “fire the human engineers the computer can design it all” aircraft industry, sometimes planes just don’t fly the way they were meant to!!
Don’t start claiming actual performance until it actually does what you claim it can!!
Don’t tell me about flight test! If you are so knowlegdable (or at least pretend to be) about it you should know that predicting airspeed is not too difficult, especially if dealing with subsonic airflow. There might be restrictions in terms of engine power output but the proposed M0.72 can be met. Normally there is always room to increase engine power by some percent. It is very unlikely to meet the drag divergence mach number or buffet onset at your design mach number.
SchorschI’m sure the same thing can be said vice versa. The truth behind your evaluation can be based somewhere between denial and “expert” knowledge.
Interesting that all the positive aspects and achievements of the J-10 program are given credit to the Israelis and the Lavi program, but any negativity and pessimism is purely due to the Chinese. How can that be when the J-10 is “100%” Lavi? You can’t have it both ways or “in between.”
Can’t remember to have mentioned the Lavi program at all. My “positions” are extrem ones. I could deliver a more sober one, but the discussions here normally don’t honor it.
The J-10 is surely derived from the Lavi, but the level of transfer is limited as J-10 is bigger and Lavi was still in early development phase. The Israelis show the difficulties in development of a fighter. I just want to point out that all nations that developed such aircraft (USA, Europe, Russia) faced huge problems although being experienced in that field. I don’t expect China to totally fail, but I expect the usual delays. Chinese projects have often been a little bit too optimistic.
So, the original question if China is due to pass Russia , gets a clear NO. The prerequisite stated by ‘fft’ are also doubtful.
SchorschSo how does the turboprop Airbus A400M fit into your theory?
You mention the An-22, but the performance of that type was compromised by the straight wings.
The swept wing XC-132 was far closer in performance to the similarly powered Tu-95 “Bear.”
It is all to easy to forget that the An-22 was far later than the C-132, but was a far less ambitious project.
It fits easily: the A400M is, like the An-70 or C-130, a tactical transporter. It sacrifices speed in favor for short TO and landing and stronger structure. The C-141 and C-5 were strategic transports, they can land on shorter runways, but normally they go from airport to airport. The C-17 is in-between, but much more expensive and actually the only jet-transport built since 1980 (except the An-124, which is also a strategic transport).
The C-132 would not have been a tactical transporter but a strategic transporter. It would have been outclassed by jet-powered aircraft after less than 10 years of service.
BTW: the A400M has a top-speed very close to that of some jet-transporters.
SchorschRussia is offering India the Mig-35 with 3D-TVC, AESA radar and a 6000hr airframe life, show me a chinese fighter that can match that now?
I will grant you that chinese avionics are improving rapidly, as is every part of the chinese aerospace industry, but it needs another decade to fully mature and get the technology currently being develope into service. For instance we have seen the compressor stage for the next gen fighter engine, the FC1-04 has advanced aerodynamic features but has yet to fly and is only a mid-sized aircraft. Once these things get brought together in a top line fighter (j-xx) then china will be on par with the rest of the world, although possibly not the US.
Russia offers to develop an aircraft with the name MiG-35, which may have AESA radar and 3D-TVC. Of course only, if India pays for it and can wait until 2008 or 2009 until this is available. Russia does not have that technology available right now. It might be accessible because they have the knowledge, but it is not integrated (hugh difference).
You people should always differentiate between “plan” and “real”. Get some engineering experience and you will see the difference. Anybody who had ever to do with aircraft development (and so called “brake-through” technologies) is a pessimist!
SchorschI admit Russia has other areas of achievement but I believe,avonic is a area which needs continuous R&D,fund and upgrade require which Russia ill-afford to and start to lack behind.
[…]
I think Russian has reach a point which it can’t offer much for its customer,seeing how stagnant Russian military deal will tell u the answer(In aviation,compare to 3-4yrs ago)! Most of yr so-call successful deal of Russian were based on 3-4yrs ago..
That is my opinion, too, but I normally don’t say it that clear. there are so manny MiG-happy people around here who still believe in the final Russian aircraft to come soon. May it be the PAK-FA, the MiG Bingo the Su-66RST, there’re all just paper-tigers.
U r correct but I believe this will change very soon. Avonics is a good example.None of the Chinese made modern fighter fitted with Russia radar,the engine will follow soon in 1-2yrs time! The fact,from PLAAF AEW to modern chinese fighter having none of their avionics deal won over for the PLAAF and PLAN offer some true abt the decline of Russia advantage in avionics…
Two versions:
1. Chinese Carneval
China develops sexy looking aircraft and flies round the block with them from time to time. Some spotters photograph the aircraft with new payloads, just to blacken out serial numbers and any real information. Whole world says:”whooo, they have fighter!”. Then they present the somehow swept all-fighter, definetly 10 times better than a Eurofighter welded on an F-22. But finally they have to admit that they just played BS-bingo and actually the whole thing can’t fly a real mission. They stick to their J-11 and participate in the next Suchoi SomeThing, so that it might come to live.
2. Chinese Foxiness
China export J-7 and FC-1, that are more or less still a J-7. They fly J-11 with Russian stuff inside and everybody knows: they can’t do sh/t! But one day the unveile the J-10 in a contest and LM is so impressed that they immediatly dumb their F-16 and Boeing renames the F-18E the “Super Hopeless”. China is big, everybody buys his DVD-players and fighter aircraft there.
Truth:
Somewhere in between.
My opinion:
75% 1st version, 25% second version.
SchorschSure. On another note: i think those 1000l tanks are too small. 1500 or even 2000l tanks are likely imho.
Note that external tanks look very often much smaller than they really are. Eurofighter can carry 1500l tanks if I am right.
SchorschSince a lot of breakthroughs are being made in China these days in all the areas of aviation i.e. avionics, engines, composite construction etc.
How then a totally Indigenized J11 will compare with modern versions of Su-27 coming from Russia itself e.g. Su-35. It would appear that Russian version may have an edge in engine department and Chinese in avionics area.
Russia succesfully exported a number of systems including Su-27. Additionally, there are more prototypes those state of development can only be speculated. Russia has other fields in which it has remarkable technology, unfortunately mostly military.
China in the contrast has until now only exported the J-7. Designs like the J-8 could not win any foreign customers. The FC-1 is still in development and the J-10 is object of speculation.
From the safe point of view there is little to expect from China. None of their more advanced programs achieved a state of amturity yet that might give any conclusions about the potential of the industry. Although so many people write about it the information available is very poor and often influenced by cheerish newsfeeders. Where there are no facts, speculation and basic judgement step in.
China cannot produce a competitive fighter aircraft at the moment without extensive help from Russia/Europe/USA.
SchorschVery doubtful if the C-132 would have become a real great thing. Aviation technology progressed so fast that large aircraft could efficiently be built as jets in early 60s. Note that props were only adopted because jets at that time just sucked. The B-52 for example hardly made it with its eight jets. It was nearly as large as the An-22 but much faster.
Generally, the pursuit for jet-transports greatly helped civil aviation in the pioneer days of jet airliners.
SchorschSomething i just noted:
If the data in the report is correct, the above shown EF is about 24 tons.
Now, lets subtract the external load/fuel:
3 1000l tanks, 1000 kg each incl empty weight and pylon: 3000kg
4 500kg bombs: 2000kg
4 AMRAAMs: 800kg
2 IRIS-T: 200kg
internal fuel: 5000kg
crew: 200kg
Total: 11200kgNow theres a difference of 12800kg.
Empty weight of the twin seater is said to be 11700kg.
Is it just test equipment or something else?
It is good that you number smatch up that good, but don’t wonder about the missing ton. It might be due to round-off in the report, additional weight not considered. For example: Do the LGB really weight 500kg exactly? Or is that just the weight of the bomb?
OK, 650km radius is not bad considering the EF has not been designed for this mission.
Note that this range is for only subsonic, optimum cruise speed. This mission could be flown by any aircraft. But if all externals are dropped, the Typhoon can be as agile as it used to be.
SchorschAs a small economy Singapoor cannot afford reasonable numbers of expensive fighters like JSF. You should have at least 20 of a type to have adequate performance, especially if the aircraft is likely to be used in the CAS role.
The Gripen is in my eyes to advanced, too expensive, but still more appriate than JSF. The F-50 would be a successor for the F-5 and offer limited performance but with the prospect of industrial partnership and more fighters affordable.
Actually, who threatens Singapoor? I think there are no air forces in the region which are really capable (Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam).
SchorschHi Members
I have recently flown from Frankfurt to Manila and return with Lufthansa on the A340-600 and was rather impressed with this aircraft, very quiet and quite comfortable, however, being a very long fuslage, I was quite surprised how the plane managed through some moderate turbulance we experienced, It just did not seem in one piece at all, I mean, it felt like parts of the cabin were bending, something I have not experienced before in other aircraft.
No I was not imagining things, I do know that aircraft are designed to bend a bit, but it just felt completely different to anything I have experienced before.
I have flown a total of 500 hrs all round the world, I am an experienced flyer and have a good knowledge of aircraft.Could it be the shear length of this aircraft that makes it feel like the plane is not in one piece ???
Anyone else been on a 600srs.
No doubt the plane is designed for this I guess.
Regards
Nordjet 415
The A340 is maybe most flexible aircraft around. Airbus was surprised by it when they first started flight tests and needed to partly redesign the flight control system (more consideration of structural modes).
SchorschAnd that has what to do with Manching closing early? Besides that restriction is old I think and imposed by people who get money to create restricitons. 😀
In Germany work ceases at 16.30h for the armed forces. No war ahead, so no need to be speedy with EF testing. Add 1h for de-briefing, 1h to get home and have a shower, so finally the pilot can be in his favorite beergarden at around 19h.
Is that range or radius? Because a radius of 300km wouldnt be that great. btw, the pic posted by Matej shows the EF loaded with two Storm Shadows on the inner wing pylons. Now where is the in-flight pic?
I guess we will never see that happening.
I talked of radius. So total range of 1300km. Just a guess, but educated on the assumption of losing all big external stores in the middle of the mission, flying at economic speeds and altitudes and attacking in safe distance to AD-systems. When loaded like this the Eurofighter will be slower than an A380 (applies for nearly all fighters).
Any external store can be fitted to the EF, it must just be approved. So normally some tests are needed. There are normally no technical issues, just buerocratical.
Sign In
