Schorschyou can add China to that list. In fact the J-10 is probably less dependent on foreign sources than the Eurofighter Typhoon which still relies on some American weapons.
J-10’s engine comes from where?
Get serious.
SchorschIn few words for fighters having no BVR weapons such as the F-5, F-16A, Kfir, Mirage F1 or in the F-4 class like the Viggen, the MiG-23 was a real threat.
The MiG-23 was not designed to find and track a target without outside help. That might work with a skilled pilot under favorable conditions, but might at the same time be his last move as he needs to give quite a lot of attention to his radar (and might not see the F-16s wing man while he stares at this magic radar blimb).
The F-16A, though not equipped with MR-AAM, can easily avoid such attacker.
If necessary it would dive and use the ground clutter as hiding. The performance of an R-23 versus a maneuvering small target with background should be miserable, even though the MiG-23 has some look-down capability.
SchorschAssuming the Acig list: “Iraqi Air-to-Air Victories since 1967” can be trusted the French must have improved the R550s performance. In the period from 1980-87, R.550 armed MiG-21s and Mirage fighters obtained at least 12 confirmed victories with this missile. A sizeable proportion of the victims seem to have been Iranian F-4D/E models which would have been just as capable of pushing the Magic capabilities to the extreme as the MiG-23 was. Quite a few of these F-4s were brought down in 1981. From April to May 1981 alone I count 3*F-4E, 3*F-5E, a Syrian MiG-21R and a Cobra gun-ship.
I guess the situations were much different.
In Africa the shot opportunities were limited, and probably many were fired outside the effective firing envelope.
Besides, we know they scored kills versus the Iranis (or at least we think we know, I don’t trust ACIG-something), but do we know how many missiles were shot in total, and how the overall success ratio was?
I guess when fired from a 30° cone behind the enemy aircraft the chance is good it hits just in the jet pipe and makes life of the other guy miserable in a split second.
The pictures look more like fired 90° and versus a wildly maneuvering target.
SchorschOne F-15 pilot mentioned a couple Mig-31s flying 620 miles at Mach 2.6 during the KAL 007 aftermath. The 747 got shot down, the USAF sent F-15s and an AWACS to the area, the Russians sent the Mig-31s and the higher ups in the USAF backed off because there was the risk of escalation out of control.
How could anyone assess the distance the aircraft flew?
To have the whole 620 miles covered, it must entirely fly though US-controlled airspace.
And how did it happen that MiG-31 were there, hardly a year after they became operational?
And why would a commander show them off AFTER the event, instead of launching them before and hiding them afterwards.
An how could a radar keep a MiG-31 and a MiG-25 apart?
The story is sure bogus.
SchorschI agree , many of this forum can claim to have “finalized designs” for a stealth fighter . heck me and my buddies came up with one when we were in college aswell…:)
I designed an A380-based air superiority fighter, of course stealthy and with M1.72 supercruise capability. Just yesterday.
SchorschLGB’s would have been a bit of an anachronism anyway. They weren’t available to the RAF in 1982, let alone the problems of a designator (another Pave Tack-equipped F-111K over Stanley?) aircraft. And there really, really weren’t enough tankers available to bring two aircraft over Stanley. One Vulcan to Stanley needed the support of 12 tankers and a few airspares. Imagine what two or more F-111s would have needed.
On the plus side of the F-111 would have been its much lower fuel flow, therefore requiring less tanker support.
The critical issue wasn’t actually the fuel consumption of the Vulvan, but the fuel consumption of the tankers. More potent tankers (like a DC-10 based KC-10) would have drastically cut these requirements.
All aircraft in that mission operated with turbojet or very early low-bypass turbo-fans.
The only operational aircraft that could have performed the mission with payload and without aerial refuelling (aside from top-up after take-off for safety reasons) was the B-52H.
SchorschLet us analize a simple factor.
Close to 60% of all humanity is directly engaged in the aviation industry and at least 50% makes jet engines,
What do 1 billions Indians have to do with the fruitless effort of their government to develop a home-grown fighter aircraft?
If you add up nations that have built or build aircraft without making an entire jet engine you get nations like Canada, Australia. New Zealand, Iran, Turkey, South Korea, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Africa, Taiwan, Nigeria, Serbia, Khazakastan, Mexico, the Philippines, Egypt, Colombia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Finland, Switzerland, and many other nations that have a minimal of aviation industry.
Which means exactly what?
How many nations/alliances tried to develop a 4th generation fighter? (8)
How many did it without the help of the USA or Russia? (2*)
So basicly the jet design know how is very well spread.
Yes, you’ll find people explaining you how it works in nearly every country.
But you’ll have a hard time finding someone how can deliver one.
You need to get yourself some insight into the issue. Don’t think because you read a history book or a Wikipedia article you know the issue. And don’t think that technology is just something that happens to lie on the street.
You belong to this “I want to believe” people.
*: the 2 are: France, Eurofighter consortium. The rest got considerable support by USA or Russia, by the way mostly concerning engine, something nobody seems to get. “Volvo is a totally independent company and just collaborates due to … whatever.”
If people would think a bit about the issue, all these Indian/Chinese/Iran dream threads would cease to exist.
SchorschFlat-spinning the F-14A surely was not just an invention (while a crack pilot like Maverick should be better in preventing it, when in a flat-spin the only possibly exit in an F-14 is vertical > eject).
Hitting the canopy after ejection I think was fraud.
SchorschSweden or Volvo AERO is most capabel. It´s a cost benefit and less risky, and much faster to refine an highly developed engine like the F404-F414.
Also lots of the new stuff in the F414 comes from the RM12 or refined from it.
like FADEC, flameholder, birdstrike rubustness designs.
On the civil market, Volvo AERO is a big subcontractor to both GE and RR. Also a contractor in rocketengine department like the enginenozzles to Ariane 5.
So, no problem here, but they dont see the need. Benefits like 120000 flight hours(RM12) without a single failure is one..
I didn’t know your Swedish were so eager on your national companies.
Volvo did a smart job in finding a balance between workshare and sourcing aborad.
There is a reason why Volvo always used a foreign engine as basis.
With help and support from the manufacturer, and useful workshare agreements, they will add to the overall effort, earn money, create jobs and keep some capability they can sell to the world. That is not that if Sweden wanted a new 20000lbs low-bypass turbo-fan, Volvo could design and produce it completely on its won.
General Electric could.
SchorschA jet engine is not a technology can not be replicated, true, lead a major engine program does need a commercail strategy and a right policy, but most of that technology is evolutive not revolutionary. that is where you fail to see most major nations can make jet engines and medium size nations just need the right economic and political alliances to make them
The only jet engines which were successfully copied were the British Nene (correct me if wrong), and potentially some Russian design by China, while these normally with lots of Soviet assistance in the beginning.
The Soviets didn’t copy the J79 or TF30, they didn’t copy any US jet engine they should have found plenty in Vietnam. Why not? Because without substantial support from the engine maker you can simply forget it. It is easier to use other designs as “inspiration”, but do it yourself.
Iran, apparently, hasn’t even started, apart from trying to reproduce some critical life-limited parts. But I doubt they can produce a high-temp turbine blade of a TF30 in a quality, that they can run the engine on full power.
SchorschDoes Airbus now list Delta Airlines as customer?
SchorschUhhh.. dude, Sweden does build jet engines. The GE engines used for Gripen are built and modified in Sweden. Yes, the basic engine is not designed in Sweden, thats right. But thats not the same as beeing unable to design jet engines. Its simply cheaper to buy them OTS.
Its hartwarming to learn that you Germans know how to do it but just dont care for it, though.
Volvo uses existing designs as basis. Take it as you want: they are no technologically independent company. They do – on the other hand – participate in many other engines.
That is the way of the western world: participation.
Although Sweden been “neutral”, it always supplied its technology from USA and Western Europe, and in change was woven into the trade.
The ability of a country depends on its industrial variety.
Size does matter in this context.
For larger economies a diversified industrial base is something that comes virtually for free, while for smaller countries it is hard to achieve and consequently uneconomical.
As Germany beats Sweden 10-1 in size (population), there is no reason to be offended. Sweden keeps quite a capability relative to its size.
SchorschThat statement is wrong, first let us say a reality most aircraft engine makers are outsourcing, it does mean simply the design of aircraft engines is also like airrframes being outsourced.
Bockmist!
Iran would like to build all that stuff, problem is it can’t.
Maybe they could muster the ability over a long period, but it would require serious investment, and as soon as they got access to Western market (as buyer), all their engine effort are wasted because they cannot compete versus the West or Russia.
Fact is that building up a home industry requires at least two decades of continuous investment and prototyping. See China or India.
It might have been easier in the 50ies, were technology was not so advanced and reverse engineering was easier, but today you can basically forget reverse engineering. You always end up short of some critical parts (which are – surprise – normally connected to engine).
the current jet technology number one is old in concept it goes back to the decade of the 1920s, that is the reason why Iran can reverse engineer the Toutour jet engine and used for cruise missile.
You have no idea!
The fact that Iran has build the Shafaq based upon the MiG-2000 that is most likely a semi-to full fledged stealth design shows that there is not such gap you are talking.
You call a wind tunnel model “build”?
Why don’t we see one flying?
And you gonna give me prove via a hilariously stacked TV-propaganda with a jacked aircraft. You’re my very personal aviation industry expert of the day!
Specially since many nations are willing to sell some technologies and transfer them
Not to Iran. Guess why not?
If the Western nations decide to boycott Iran, and have China and Russia in the boat to some extent (preventing at least critical parts from being sold), Iran gonna end up with empty hands.
SchorschCry me a river. I wonder why did Germany fly their Phantoms with the original engines instead of designing their own and reengining them, then.. And why did they buy AMRAAMs and APG-65s if German industrial base and knowledge are incomparably wider that the ones of Iran?
Was it impossible for Germany to develop a radar comparable to APG-65 which has been 15+ years old at that time? Nope, it just was not economically feasible to develop a new thing for the few dozens of upgraded PIIs.
I guess because we do not challenge the entire region by producing a nuclear weapon or threatening to wipe out entire countries.
Secondly, buying things is often cheaper than making it yourself, with the slight difference that Iran isn’t allowed to buy at Lockheed-Walmart.
I think there never was a shortage of J79 spare parts for German F-4F.
You missed entirely the point.
SchorschThe question is the following what do you mean by aircraft industry?
vast majority of nations can make aircraft, it is not a technology unknown to most nations.Now you are claiming making an engine means the real aircraft industry.
First let us go by parts.
To make an aircraft you do not need to make an engine, Sweden makes aircraft without any authentic swedish engine.
However no one says the Gripen is not swedish.
the AMX uses an English engine and nobody claims the jet is not Italian or Brazilian.Most European nations do not build a single jet engine by their own except France and England.
Now it does not mean the Netherlands did not build the Fokker airliners or Italy the Mangusta.
In the case of Iran, it has proven it can built light utility planes, reversed engineered Bell Helicopters and F-5s, design and build light jet trainers, license built turboprop cargo/civil aircraft and reversed engineered jet engines to power cruise missiles and at least a prototype of a modern light attack fighter based upon the MiG-2000 very likely.
Now why many nations do not build jet fighters is simple first is politics, second is economics and third is military budgets.
Most air forces do not want to spend money in building aircraft, example Egypt which built several jet aircraft in the last half of the XX century, Israel that stalled the Lavi program, Argentina that stopped design of its own jet fighter even when it built jet fighters in the 1950s etc etc.
Most nations can build aircraft and most nations have the level to built light utility planes.
Most emerging markets are building aircraft and most large nations of more than 50 million people can build aircraft.
You are simply underestimating a Nation withouit even caring to research a little a bit about their aircraft industry and without having real sources to know the real state of the aircraft industry of a given nation.
Yes, nice, and correct I guess.
As long as they are unable to produce state-of-art (= F100-PW100) engines, they can trash all attempts to build a fighter. Because without engine it is a waste of time.
By the way: Germany could build an engine, doesn’t do it for economic reasons. Sweden probably couldn’t do it, that’s correct.
Japan could builds aero-engines.
China has started.
India can’t do it, at least not satifasctory.
The issue is: airframes* are for boys, engines are for men.
And if they build a Jet Ranger or piston prop, heck who cares.
It doesn’t mean jack in this content.
* top class airframes are not for boys, but a reasonable something is enough in the beginning. A 1to1 copy of the slatted F-4E with state-of-art engines and electronics would make a reasonable fighter.
Sign In
