crobatoI’m not really very convinced of the Gripen actually. I see it more of a light fighter class FC-1/F-CK-1/F-50/F-20 type that has a delta wing, canards and some impressive networking technology. Every country that developed this type of fighter (PRC/ROC/ROK/USA respectively) have serious doubts about the viability of this genus of fighter.
Considering that the IDF does a lot of ground pounding, you know, against Hezbollah and so on, I’m not convinced that the Lavi’s configuration, construction and design is more suited for that task compared to F-16s. Wings are a pretty swept, not really good for low speeds. Engines definitely not as powerful and you need that for the loads. A lighter structure may also mean less reinforcement for higher payloads and so on.
crobatoThe US did not need to provide the Israelis with the fly-by-wire software for the Lavi. The computers were produced in America, but the software was developed in Israel.
I’ve read the technical reports connected with this. The Israeli experience with the Lavi FBW software was later used to develop a patch for the FBW software used the F-16’s deployed by Israel, that enhances their available envelope.
Would you consider that it was possible that Israel could have shared and thought the Chinese this FBW technology? At least with the development of said software.
The FBW system is the vital cornerstone that makes an active delta canard possible. These planes present tremendous problems in stability, having a high CG in the rear, often need to contend with canard turbelence over the fuselage, etc,.
One, the Lavi was most certainly not a failure- in terms of design, and it was most certainly capable of being made into an aircraft in Israel. And two, Israel could have supplanted the American parts with its own and Chinese made replacements.
In a way the plane was more than flyable, but it was also a dead end design. It had limited expansion options. Not much to put stuff in, not much engine output to really put the load on. The stabilizer which looks straight out of the F-16’s, may not be enough to handle canard turbulence, and the canards themselves are too close to the wing, which can be messy. The bubble canopy drag does not improve the situation. The plane’s aggresssive sweep angles on the canards and on the wing suggest its trying to gain as much high speed performance (needs it because the engine isn’t that strong), at the expense of low speed control.
crobatoYur right, these J-10s represent a new block of planes. My old pictures of yellow J-10s don’t have the cover flap in front of the landing gear for example. I do wonder what that device is on the back of the canopy.
crobatoBut the IDF will swarm the motherland and save the world! New variant of the IDF just released.
〔記者鄒景雯、許紹軒／台中大雅報導〕提昇ＩＤＦ戰機性能的「翔昇計畫」昨天邁出重要一步，全新生產的翔昇機昨天下午在台中清泉崗基地秘密展開首次試飛，在一架現役ＩＤＦ戰機的伴航下，編號一○○○五的翔昇機不收起落架，完成廿分鐘的處女航，並順利降落機場。
十月九日原定翔昇機還有一次正式試飛，陳水扁總統也將親臨主持。但軍方因故將試飛延期，確切時間尚未確定。
昨天的清泉崗基地雖然天氣晴朗，但風勢很強，駐紮在清泉崗基地的四二七聯隊戰機訓練任務從上午開始就沒停過，ＩＤＦ戰機不斷升空，期間還穿插台中航空站民航機的起降；下午一時許，擔負訓練任務的ＩＤＦ戰機陸續返航降落，發動機的聲響傳遍台中縣大雅沙鹿一帶。
約在下午二時五十五分，有二架ＩＤＦ戰機在滑行道上一反常態地由西往東地駛抵跑道，第一架從外觀灰色塗裝就可認出是空軍現役的ＩＤＦ戰機。
第二架戰機就是翔昇機，藍色的垂直尾翼隱約可見有個圖樣，但因距離過遠無法辨識，翔昇機從滑行道轉向跑道時，現出機身特殊的塗裝，包括深藍、淺藍、綠、白、紅與灰等色彩，乍看之下與俄製Su-27戰機的塗裝有些相近。
第一架ＩＤＦ戰機先起飛，繞過整個機場後，在由南往北飛入機場之際，翔昇機跟著加大馬力滑行升空，由於是第一次試飛，三個起落架都沒有收起就直接往西飛向台灣海峽，二架戰機瞬間消失在眼前。
約在三時十五分，戰機返航，首先降落的就是翔昇機，戰機機鼻加裝相關測試探針，並在原本ＩＤＦ印有「經國」字樣的位置，改為「翔昇」二字，外觀上變化雖然不大，但翔昇機發動機部位的後段機體看來似乎比現役戰機較厚高，鼻輪倉蓋外觀似乎也有不同。
翔昇機落地後就滑行到位於機場西側的漢翔公司棚廠，結束廿分鐘的首飛處女航。
——————————————————————————–
具對地攻擊力 將接替F5E
〔記者許紹軒／台北報導〕據了解，「翔昇案」為ＩＤＦ戰機性能提昇計畫，翔昇機明年初將在機背加裝二具適形油箱，多出的燃油量讓戰機可增加一倍以上滯空時間，新機具備對地攻擊能力，以接替F-5E戰機除役後對地密接支援的任務。
翔昇計畫經費為七十億元，區分成三階段執行，包括天劍二型中程空對空飛彈掛彈量從二枚增加為四枚，還有天劍二Ａ型反輻射飛彈、萬劍機場遙攻集束彈與青雲油氣彈；在航電系統方面，任務電腦升級、改良電子反反制裝置、電戰系統、先進敵我識別系統，及地貌追隨模式與雷達系統的改良等。
新戰機另加強機體結構以裝設機背適形油箱，這種油箱配合為降低空氣阻力而緊貼在機體上，既可增加航程又可減低阻力；但新油箱裝上後，原有的燃油量測指示控制系統需要修改，同時還要在新油箱中新增相關裝置，以將油箱油量量測指示進行整合。
因此中科院主導的翔昇機研發團隊為了解對燃油量測指示控制系統修改需求，及修改後產生的影響和工程問題進行評估，還在去年七月份派出二名工程師赴美。
由於新油箱仍在製造中，無論在昨天或近期將舉辦的正式試飛，新ＩＤＦ戰機都將不會裝上適形油箱，最快要到明年初才正式安裝，並測試其空氣動力數據。
crobatoThe evil little red commie Chinese and their Death Rays are at it again!
Oct 5, 2006
China jamming test sparks U.S. satellite concerns
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – China has beamed a ground-based laser at U.S. spy satellites over its territory, a U.S. agency said, in an action that exposed the potential vulnerability of space systems that provide crucial data to American troops and consumers around the world.
The Defense Department remains tight-lipped about details, including which satellite was involved or when it occurred.
The Pentagon’s National Reconnaissance Office Director Donald Kerr last week acknowledged the incident, first reported by Defense News, but said it did not materially damage the U.S. satellite’s ability to collect information.
“It makes us think,” Kerr told reporters.
The issue looms large, given that U.S. military operations have rapidly grown more reliant on satellite data for everything from targeting bombs to relaying communications to spying on enemy nations.
Critical U.S. space assets include a constellation of 30 Global Positioning Satellites that help target bombs and find enemy locations. This system is also widely used in commercial applications, ranging from car navigation systems to automatic teller machines.
The Pentagon also depends on communications satellites that relay sensitive messages to battlefield commanders, and satellites that track weather in critical areas so U.S. troops can plan their missions.
“Space is a much bigger part of our military posture than it used to be, so any effort by the Chinese or anybody else to jam our satellites is potentially a big deal,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.
FRESH CONCERNS
Clearly, the incident sparked fresh concerns among U.S. officials and watchdog groups about the U.S. ability to determine if satellite problems are caused by malfunctions, weather anomalies like solar flares, or targeted attacks.
Air Force Space Commander Gen. Kevin Chilton said it was often difficult to know exactly what happened to satellites orbiting from 125 to 22,400 miles above the earth.
“We’re at a point where the technology’s out there and the capability for people to do things to our satellites is there. I’m focused on it beyond any single event,” Chilton said.
Satellites are also vulnerable to man-made and natural events affecting their ground stations and the links between the station and the satellite, he told reporters last week.
Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information cautioned against jumping to conclusions about the Chinese incident.
Beijing may have been testing its capability to track satellites, not damage them, Hitchens said. “We don’t know their intent, and we don’t have the capability to know.”
Hitchens also noted current technology made it difficult to identify anything smaller than a baseball in the orbits where spy satellites fly, a capability that needed to be improved.
At the same time, she said, the Pentagon would be prudent to use lower-cost and lower-risk systems closer to earth to do some critical tasks like surveillance and communications.
ANTI-SATELLITE WEAPONS?
Hitchens also emphasized that it would be extremely difficult to disable a satellite with a laser — and even U.S. scientists had not developed a system to do that.
But there is growing concern among lawmakers about U.S. efforts to develop such anti-satellite weapons.
House of Representatives lawmakers tried to block a planned test of Starfire, a satellite and star tracking program, for fiscal 2007 after learning it could also be used as an anti-satellite weapon. The funds were reinstated only after the Air Force assured lawmakers it would be used only for tracking.
The Chinese incident also underscored the need to develop an international code of conduct for space. Currently, there are no specific rules or treaties governing behavior of the 40 countries that operate satellites, and about a dozen countries that have launch capability, Hitchens said.
Related link: Reuters
crobatoWeapons testing also takes place at Dingxin. They, and the J-8IIs, could also be there for PL-12 integration testing. FLANKERs could be around for weapons training.
The J-8IIs could be there for weapons PL-12 testing or at least have done their job, and if Flankers are there doing PL-12 testing (sorry not training that’s the FTTC’s job), then they are indeed of the J-11B configuration. The WS-10A equipped J-11 prototype was located at the CFTC. This is the place if you’re going to test planes with new engines.
However, the J-10s spotted with the PL-12s are not associated with the CFTC but with the FTTC in the Beijing regional command. That’s because the planes photoed have the characteristic camouflage of the J-10s assigned there. J-10 prototypes spotted testing the PL-11s were located at Chengdu. All this does not suggest the CFTC was used for J-10 weapons testing. In fact, I’m a little surprised contrary to most Chinese projects, how little the CFTC played a part with the J-10 development, which seemed mostly handled right at Chengdu.
The previous picture of the same CFTC base did not show J-10s previously. The only other possible J-10 that was in the CFTC was the original 01 prototype herself.
crobatoI would tend to agree with garry on this one!!
Same with me.
crobatoHey … I think that base isn’t new and has been shown here … but just a closer look !
Here are the coordinations: 40°23’48.22″N / 99°46’40.38″E Dingxin airbase acting as AWACS test facility within the CFTE
… I just added “some” of the aircraft …. at least 3 more J-10 !!! :diablo:
CHeers, Deino
Planes in the CFTC are prototypes, so the J-10s should be prototyps for a new variant. If J-10s are fitted with WS-10As or the TVC AL-31FN, they would be placed here. Probably one plane might have one, and another the other.
J-11s in this base should be the ones testing the WS-10A or have the J-11B configuration. It looks like there are at least five of these prototypes here.
The AWACS might be monitoring both the airspace, and tracking the prototypes in flight.
crobatoThe red numbered planes are probably old library film footage added to the take, perhaps to compare the new planes with the old. The color of the footage seems clear they were not taken in the same time, situation and camera.
crobatoThat sounds about right, I hear the Q-5 is somethign of a widowmaker. Do they carry PGMs? I take it they will be rapidly replaced by the JH-7.
Q-5 is difficult to fly, but not exactly what you call a widow maker. The Q-5 like the J-6 and MiG-19 before it, requires constant attention when flying, as the plane seems to have less relative stability, which by the way, also gives the plane its great maneuverbility.
Latest Q-5s use LGBs with a laser designator in the nose.
JH-7A is still a big, expensive and complex aircraft. Will replace some of the Q-5s but not all. Can’t replace the Q-5s in time and in such numbers before the JH-7A becomes even more obsolete than it is already. At best the JH-7As will replace lead regiments in divisions using Q-5s, and the JH-7A regiments will lead and direct the Q-5 regiments into battle.
crobatoIncidentally, India ordered 17+44 GE-F404-IN20s but the LSP aircraft are still some years away from induction.
But have the engines been recieved? China ordered an unknown batch for prototypes and preproduction aircraft, then went on to order 54 engines, all of which had been delivered, then top of that, ordered another 100 engines, which on top of that, had been all been delivered according to Salut’s schedule as of September 2006. That isn’t just one batch, that’s already deep into the third batch, and furthermore, the last batch already featured engine improvements over the former, suggesting that the plane is not just in serial production, but has moved into a next stage variant.
That’s more than just trial stage.
You seem to think that I’m suggesting that the entire J-10 airframes/scenes or programme are PSed or CGI. I am not. However, I’m saying that the small details that can be analysed – serials, markings, roundels etc, can be tampered with or modified, and it would be quite difficult to make out the mods.
Well they could be, but then you were already told, the persons who should have done so must also have an arcane knowledge of PLAAF orbats and unit coding—and then be acutely aware of these orbats and unit coding of how they have changed according to the years. There is an acute difference between a J-10 with a number like 81192 (the J-10 that is in Battlefield 2 game is numbered like that), and a J-10 numbered 10642. And if you’re not aware of this system of arcade coding, you would not know if which unit serial number of the two examples would be true or false, 54605 or 50250.
In any case, also take note the pics of J-10s are not just pics of single planes, but rows of multiple aircraft, often accompanied as a set of several pictures not just one.
crobatoThe latest Q-5 versions carry LGBs, which is their only form of PGM and a laser designator inside the nose. Forget about carrying fire control radar, The Q-5 has a reputation of being difficult to fly, but that’s inherited from the J-6/MiG-19 design which has a reputation of being so. The plane is so maneuverable it borders on instability. It also has good thrust to weight ratio, two 3900kg thrust engines produce nearly 8000kg of thrust for an airframe that weighs roughly 5800-6400kg empty. Compared to the JH-7A, the Q-5 would have fighter like responses.
The JH-7A appear to be in the process of replacing Q-5s, or at least two Q-5 regiments appear to be using JH-7A now. But the “green” Q-5s, the latest model Q-5s that are painted in green and not white, don’t appear retired either but were simply moved to another or new regiment. So it does appear that the green Q-5s will stay for a while.
crobatoThe truth is, the Q-5 was thrown into the CAS role because the PLAAF didn’t think the role was worth investing a new customized plane. That’s why I don’t think the FC-1 was meant as a Q-5 replacement. Besides, it’s really only did the Q-5s reached the D version was their CAS roles become more expressed. Prior to that, they also worked more like strike bombers too, including nuclear arms delivery and there was work on launching antiship missiles. For that reason, I think what the PLAAF really wanted was a versatile strike bomber like the JH-7A but had to settle for the Q-5 because that was the thing that only was available.
The FC-1 might do some CAS roles but generally even that plane is not as efficient as the F-16 which has more range and payload. In that sense, it really does not even match the J-10 in that role. Even though the J-10 has more wing sweep, it has more wing area, which is better for loading bombs.
As for the F-16s, every grunt will tell you they prefer the A-10 to watch over their backs. Using F-16s for CAS is more of a political decision than one based on tactical merits.
crobatoA little but obviously, nothing is enough. That is why I asked for what others with experience in the same field think?
And you think you are the only one with this access huh?
Early J-10 PS jobs were easily caught, because like your Egyptian example, they are merely Typhoon or Lavi pictures with roundels changed. But when the real J-10 pictures started showing, they do belie a wealth of technical and unit detail that can only be satisfied if the hoaxer can do the following:
Photoshop wizard
Access to a high end professional CAD program. Too much engineering detail even for digital 3D animation programs. We’re talking about the kind of CAD programs used in large corporations.
Functional details belie the creator must have a degree in aeronautical engineering. Oh and he probably took the pains in testing the model through a wind tunnel. There is quite a difference in the functional realistic look between a CGI fantasy jet and actual jets the moment you see both.
The creator must have access to PLAAF airbases, especially those not published before. Has to take a lot of time snooping the CAC factory, the 3rd Division base in Wuhu, the CFTC base, and the FTTC base for background. Had to be snooping inside the pertaining bases. Have to spend the air fare to fly across China to go to these bases, since they are all in very different locations, then have the priveleged access to enter inside them. Many J-10 pictures have point of views that cannot be taken over a fence or outside of the base, but deep inside.
Or he took the enormous risk of sneaking into these air bases in order to take pictures of the background using the inside base point of view look. You got to jail if you get caught.
The creator must have an arcane knowledge of PLAAF unit coding and ORBAT to make the coding consistent to the ORBAT.
The creator must know exactly what shade of color the PLAAF uses.
The creator must know exactly when did the PLAAF unit coding schemes change. There has been a number of changes that occured in a few years. Simply said, a J-10 with white color and red unit markings like in the BF2 game would have been a PS because even though the color and unit colors are PLAAF, they are those from the PLAAF a long time ago.
Spent a large amount of time in texture rendering and light shading to get them all right.
Even given actual wages in China, the wage cost of producing such pictures would be enormous, on top of the necessary air fares. Multiply the cost to nearly a hundred pictures.
PV-1 (KH-2003).
insignia and unit numbers
Yes.
in an IAF military base
Blore and Yelahanka are IAF bases.
and at least in enough number to make one squadron
But like the alleged Egyptian plane, analysis isn’t made in isolation of other factors. If the LCA picture is backed up by reports of let’s say, a large number of GE F404 engines imported to India, then you can say you may have a legitimate reason to assume you have at least a squadron.
But you don’t have such a report.
And that’s what the J-10 reports do include. It can be substantiated externally by the engine deliveries and the Russian reports. So does Western defense media like Jane’s.
Furthermore, the PLAAF unit coding is a comprehensive number that discloses not just the serial unit, but also the regiment and division which it belongs to. And once that is determined, you can also determine which military region command, province and air base it belongs to.
Just remember, the Soviets have also many pics of planes with unit numbers in bases, and that includes prototypes. However, we do know that unlike the Russians, the PLAAF do code their planes differently, e.g. 3 to 4 unit numbers denoting prototypes and preproduction aircraft, 5 unit numbers denoting actual regimental deployment.
crobatoI don’t see why. True CAS jobs require a plane with more loiter and low speed performance. FC-1 ain’t it. I won’t consider the Q-5 to be a good CAS design either, its more what the Chinese back then cobbled together to produce an attack plane during a turbulent and isolated era but in generally, its too fighter like for a CAS role, too short ranged, and the payload is too low. The supposed replacement of the Q-5 is the JH-7A, and we know the PLAAF puts their mouth on it by actually replacing at least two now former Q-5 units with JH-7As.
Sign In
