crobatoThey’re all that similar because if you cut the portion from the front, they all look like F-16s. There is some differences though, the IAR 95 shown there has its wings high above the fuselage or anhedral. The other sculpt there, like MiG Project 33 is lower winged and looks slightly dihedral. The FC-1 on the other hand, has its wings set in the middle and its wings flat.
crobatoRunning out of answers are you?
Where did Sino Defense claim there is a WP-13 prototype by the way? What is that 60% crap you’re talking about? You never answered the question, considering the FBW software is highly proprietary. Considering how the Europeans took a long time to perfect the FBW software for the Gripen, Rafale and Typhoon (and not without crashes) without the sordid engine changes, who would have figured that the Israelis and the Chinese could have mastered FBW programming to such extent you can code the FBW for your alleged WP-13 J-10 prototype and then quickly code another version for the J-10 AL-31FN prototype? You really have no idea beyond your basic LEGO knowledge that active delta canards are negative unstable aircraft, hence they are very sensitive to changes of weight in the rear, and that means changes of engine weight and aircraft structure. The FBW software that has to deal with it, poses a greater task than to deal with an aircraft with neutral stability.
crobatoWhere is your proof by the way? You still have not shown proof of your WP-13 Lavi protoype. WHERE IS IT?
Don’t give me your LEGO aeronautical engineering crap. You failed to discount engine diameter, and hell yeah, 300kg difference in engines can be something, because that usually means another 300kg or double of supporting structure needed to support that weight, and that cascades down throughout the entire plane design, right down to the landing gear. This is not to mention the diameter sizes and so on.
crobatoFlogger is always in some fantasy wawa land that’s for sure.
Never mind that restructuring a Lavi to fit a smaller engine also creates changes of CG that requires reprogramming of FBW code that is first of all, closed and proprietary intellectual property rights of a US firm. Then you have to reprogram the FBW back to fit a plane with the AL-31FN engine? Who would think of such absurdity but Mr. Flogger. He thinks designing planes are as easy as Lego blocks.
crobatoI am not denying there are dificulties in re-engine any aircraft, however these difficulties can be overcome, not all re-engined aircraft meant changing the airframe however a re-engine is always possible
there are a few aircraft that remained the same after have been re-engined
F-15, F-14, MiG-23, F-16, MiG-21 etc etc…
These are some few aircraft that were modified and changed to some degree their airframe:
Tu-22M3/Tu-22M2: Tu-22M3 it has new inlets.
Kfir/Mirage V : the Kfir has a new rear end and fin.
MiG-27/MiG-23M: the MiG-27 has modified inlets.
MiG-25/MiG-31:The MiG-31 has new inlets and different rear nozzles
J-8II/J-8:The j-8II has new inlets
F-18E/F-18A/C:the F-18E has different inletsbasicly the IAI Lavi according to SIBNIA would be to the J-10, like the MiG-25 is to the MiG-31 in few words an ancestor
Each of these have engines that belong to the same thrust/weight and family class. The J-8I for example, uses the WP-7, which is the equivalent to the Tumansky R-11, which is also a MiG-21 engine.
So again, all of your examples have proven empty.
I call upon your B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T once again.
Why would you fit an engine that only has half the thrust and half the airflow of the specified one?
Where is your proof that a WP-13 J-10 prototype exists? Pictures please.
You are truly embarrassing, you believing a fool Russian language article that is copying off from a Chinese internet fan speculator web article who could not have known better.
How foolish of you to measure engine length when in fact, it is the intake diameter of the engine that counts as well as the weight of the engine.
Everyone in this forum thinks you’re a loon in a dreamland, considering how much you have discredited yourself with the MiG-23 combat records and casualties in all.
crobatoMost likely all the “F-16 lites” going around tend to have one commonality, mainly the “F-16ness”. There isn’t that many ways you can design an F-16 style planform with twin side intakes. Also note the so called MiG Project 33 connection to the FC-1. So which one is really connected to the FC-1? That would also make the IAR-95 look quite similarly to the MiG Project 33, where in fact, their similarities are more coincidental than anything, mainly because similar functionalities do tend to force similar looks.
The FC-1’s basic look is far more likely to owe more to Grumman’s proposed Super 7 design (which looks like a single seater FTC-2000).
crobato40% is a lot. And if that covers the FBW, that’s more than one vital aspect of the plane.
I never knew a single case where the US gave the software code of an FBW system to anyone, not even an ally.
You think the US is so gullible and don’t keep aces in the hole to keep its satellites in toe?
crobatoThe A-50 is a light-attack aircraft designed for CAS role. It’s too short-legged to reach out and hit back. With the budget earmarked for mass-producing hundreds of A-50s, we can upgrade all of our F-16s and maybe buy more long-range heavy-duty fighters. It would be wiser to spend money on developing our own avionics and weapons rather than airframes, IMHO.
Cheers,
Sunho
There is a self contradiction in that. The problem of F-16s and your own avionics, is that the US, and LM, would not necessarily want your indigenous avionics and missiles even on the F-16s they sell to you. They want their own total package and they want to sell their own version of upgrades. Look at the Israeli experience. They developed their own avionics and missiles, but LM would not let them put those on the brand new F-16I’s, which still comes with US made and designed APG-68V9. Integration appears so far as limited as using IR AAMs like Pythons, but integrating IR AAMs are relatively easy to do. What about the Derby’s?
For that matter, we don’t see Taiwan’s indigenous AAMs like the TC-1, TC-2 don’t see duty on their F-16s either.
Because of LM’s lock on the market, the F-16 upgrade market isn’t a lucrative one. Ask IAI’s ELTA. Ask Italy’s FIAR.
crobatoYes basically the equation requires that you need to reduce RCS to a small fraction, basically 1/16th, of the original, just to achieve even 50% range reduction. Thus a plane with 1m RCS and a plane with 3m RCS, does not really produce that much of a significant reduction in radar detection range.
crobatoCAS role? This design is poor for a CAS role, in the same way the F-16 blows compared to the A-10 for such purposes. It’s too fast and its even supersonic. A proper CAS aircraft is meant to fly efficiently and very maneuverbly at very low speeds. This is more of a light fighter design (Gripen, LCA, FC-1, F-CK-1, F-20) class that is still surely meant for air combat.
crobatoJust found at CDF posted by Xinhui … “PLANAF 5th Independent Regiment (Bomber)” with H-6M.
Deino 😀
The numbers indicate PLANAF 1st Division. So that is either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd Regiment, but these particular planes look like 2nd to me.
Fifth regiment would be like PLANAF 2nd Division (81X2X) which Hui Tong also confirms as existing. So for now, that’s two confirmed H-6M regiments.
crobatoPossible SD-10 MRAAM going to be 1st time fired for test, That only will be done by the PT 06 platform
PT04 already has the full avionics. I would gather that the earlier prototypes would already been updated with the avionics for the weapons testing if indeed CAC is in a rush to get these into production.
crobatoTwo bases? I thought they were only visible at one actual fighter base, Gucheng (or Jiugucheng in GE)? The others are visible at Chengdu. Is there a third base that I just haven’t noticed yet?
That’s two bases, Chengdu’s private base and the one at Jiugucheng, which is part of the FTTC. All the planes have the light blue serial color, indicating the ones at Chengdu are set to be delivered somewhere. These pictures are circa 2004 vintage.
crobatoThe Mig21 was designed to be simple and easy to make, China also got a least part of the blueprints and machinary needed to produce the Mig21 as well as several actual examples to work with. Even then look how long it took to make a merely copy.
The American parts in the Lavi were not produced in Israel, thus no blueprints on those critical parts could have been passed along, and there is zero evidence that actual examples were passed on. Add to that the fact that many of the key components were made with highly advanced tools and materials that neither Israel nor China has readily access to and its clear that for China to try and copy the Lavi would present them with more problems then solutions.
As a matter of fact, the FBW of the Lavi was supplied by Lear Siegler, a US company. With the FBW outsourced, you can’t adapt the FBW from one plane to another just like that as FBW software has to be carefully tailored to each plane’s signature aerodynamics, flight characterstics, weight and center of gravity.
crobatoSigh..the day you actually prove it instead of speculating the same from pictures will be the day everyone shuts up. Serials can be PS’ed. PS Jobs have been professional enough and frequent enough to put a big question mark on the credibility of all pics. It would’nt be too unfair to assume that weapons firing and IFR pics would have also been released, if CAC were gracious enough to release earlier PR pics. So pardon me for being a bit skeptic.
Except that we know that
* photoshopped images can indeed be tested and detected.
* _Old_ images of Google Earth already showed serial fighters in at least two bases.
* Chinese authorities do try to *censor* serial numbers by removing them, obviously in an attempt to hide their ORBAT. So if pictures are leaked out with serial numbers, that’s a rarity and it is a valuable intel find. I give credit to Rick Kamer, who used to post here and the CDF, and who is a retired US Air Force intelligence officer. He documented the arcane unit coding the PLAAF uses for its serial numbers, and I have never seen a prankster with this comprehension, as indeed faking numbers can easily be detected as well.
* Salut has already publicly disclosed at least as many as 154 engines has been delivered from 2002, the last 100 engines ending this month. The last 100 engines include TVC and uprated thrust (AL-31FNM-1, 13,200kg thrust with the nozzle designed by Klimov). This does not count an undisclosed number of engines delivered prior starting 2002 which were meant for prototypes and preproduction planes. The Russians have described the second version of the J-10 as “Super 10”. At this point, its clearly documentable from Salut that the J-10 development has indeed entered a second stage intended to achieve supermaneuverability. I don’t think I need to post these articles again and again in front of people who selectively preen evidence only to fit how they want to “feel” good.
* Go check with Jane’s PLAAF updates, and as of 2005, they mention at least 62 planes.
Sign In
