crobatoBTW, why must put DSI intakes in F22, that design no benefit on supersonic cruise & high Mach numbers.
For one thing it saves weight and complexity. Moving variable intake diverter offers a risk of increasing RCS from a headon position.
crobatoThe IDF will get what it wants. It always does. The US will pay for what the IDF wants too.
Seriously, why is Israel complaining about getting 5th gen aircraft that the US taxpayers will foot for anyways?
Israel is not a customer, but a recipient of US aid. In these conditions, one should say a humble “thank you very much” instead to citicise the received gift. Of course, they have an alternative — pay for the fighters…
My sentiments exactly.
crobatoOne thing I admire about the Chinese is their willingness to make significant tweaks to the aircraft to make it better. Both the FC-1 and J-10 are barely getting going (although the J-10 is further along obviously) yet they’re willing to make significant changes to make them even better. Can you imaging if they did that to the F-22 or F-35? “WHAT?? You wanna put diverterless intakes on the F-22 you say? That thing must be sh!t if you need to change it. CANCEL THE PROGRAM!!!!”
I always wondered why they don’t put DSI on the F-22. But I guess that there is an elephantine bureaucracy that has grown around the US defense-military establishment. Any changes will result in a domino effect that will raise costs, and a small increase of cost here will snowball into a cost avalanche, which will result in another round of committee overhearings and such considering that the project is already under an accounting microscope. It’s not a topic to be discussed here, but the keyword what the US defense-military establishment needs is reform.
crobatoThis formal announcement does suggest engineers. Some say it is the Y-8 with the balance beam, but it could also be the one with the dish. The handling of these planes can get iffy due to the weight and drag of the antenna.
Personally I think it is the balance beam plane. A gust of wind sideways can cause the plane to roll over. I never really thought of that as a sound aerodynamic design.
40 killed in Chinese military plane crash
BEIJING — Forty people died in a military plane crash in eastern China, official media said late yesterday, confirming that all onboard were killed.
President Hu Jintao expressed his condolences for those killed in the transport plane crash on Saturday in Anhui province, Xinhua news agency said.
“The motherland and people will never forget their (the victims’) heroic names and merits,” Hu said in the first official response to the crash.
“They have made important contributions to national defence and the modernisation of the army,” he said.
The victims had “firmly remembered the sacred mission endowed on them by the party and the people” and had “defied all hardships to faithfully perform their duties,” he said in his message of condolence. Hu has ordered an investigation into the crash, dispatching a team to the site and demanding that the military draw lessons from the incident, Xinhua said. — AFP
crobatofrom this morning,most information indicatede that this is an Y-8 awacs.furthermore,someone said his university classmate is on the plane………..about 28-36 experts died in the accidentso maybe their body seems like civilian.
this is a biglose to chinese AWACS project
But somehow why would women and children be rumored among the bodies if that was an AWACs? Sorry but even AWACs personnel should be wearing military uniform.
crobatoThe latest rumors coming out say that the bodies have civilian clothing and there were women and children among them. Most tragic. The plane could have been transporting family members and other civilians.
On the Y-8 AWACS, these are more likely to be based on either the CFTC, which is more closer to the Xian city region, or in Nanjing, where Lab 14 is located. The KJ-2000s are all located in Nanjing. I don’t think this is an AWACS.
crobatoAnhui is the province where the 3rd Division is located. As you know, this has an Su-30 regiment and a regiment being converted to J-10. If there are 3rd Division pilots in that plane, this is a severe blow to the PLAAF.
crobatohttp://www.ettoday.com/2006/05/24/11342-1945508.htm
http://tw.news.yahoo.com/060524/195/3687z.htmlArticles dated 24 May 2006.
Taiwanese newspapers claim PLAAF will dedicate an aggressor squadron of Su-27s to simulate ROCAF F-16s.
Taiwan newspapers have a tabloid style of reporting at times so I am not sure if this can be given face value.
But if this is true, does this mean they will put J-11s with the FTTC, which is where the Aggressor located? Currently in the FTTC, there is a J-8D, an Su-30MKK and a J-10 regiment. The J-7E regiment there is the dedicated aggressor group, but given these are all under the same base and command, the J-8Ds, Su-30MKKs and J-10s are likely to have been used for aggressor training and wargames.
In addition to this, varlous PLAAF Su-27/J-11 regiments appear to play Blue Flag in exercises, one coming to my mind is the former Su-27 regiment in the 3rd Division located in Nanjing MR now with Su-30MKKs, and the 6th Regiment in the 2nd Division now with J-11s.
But these are not dedicated aggressors, and by dedicated, this means aggressors as their primary mission, not a secondary role. The only dedicated aggressor group is the J-7E regiment located in the FTTC. Their commander have previously resisted efforts to upgrade their beloved J-7Es to J-11s, and made a solid point in this by “shooting” down three of the 2nd Division’s Su-27s in mock air combat exercise to prove his point.
But if indeed this unit is now upgrading to J-11s, then I guess not even the commander can hold off the inevitable tide of progress forever.
See, given some of Chavez’s ramblings, that is interesting. Would the PLAAF be interested in acquiring a few F-16s from Venezuela to fly in the aggressor role? Or at least to fly around for a bit and get an idea of the Viper’s combat handling and whatnot? That’d be a pretty interesting and smart move by China if you ask me.
As much as people are entertained by such notions, this isn’t going to happen.
crobatoThat’s assuming a 25 year or more production run and not assuming that the plane won’t be replaced in the interim, and that’s also assuming an optimistic 48 plane a year production rate. That would be considered very ambitious by today’s standards for a modern fighter anywhere in the world.
1200 planes is based on the assumption that there is roughly the said amount of currently in service J-8s and J-7s of all variations that will need replacement in the future. That’s like total market size without assuming the possibility of downsizing. But that grab for the market space is also facing competition with the J-11B and even the FC-1 which can reduce the market slice even more.
The 400 number being estimated is on the other hand, based on historical trends. The number of J-8s of all types probably only ran up to just over 400. The last J-7E/G variant probably went just over 300. The total number of Flankers of all types have exceeded well over 300 and might reach only between 400 to 500 by the end of the decade. That’s for a line of aircraft being acquired since 1992.
crobato^^^ i guess i have figured it out …. had a look at a few more pics of 04 ….
it says “TAUNDER” … now is that Chinese for Thunder ?? wat does TAUNDER mean ??
If you’re trying to be funny, it is pretty lame. Everyone can see the script with the fancy font says Thunder.
crobatoThanks for the take off pic and great 3 sided view – Goldendragon. 🙂
This could be the camo selected by the PAF, similar to their F-16’s but lighter shades.
The camos used by all the world’s F-16s is the same standard one that the USAF uses. Only the few countries, notably Israel, dared different their camos from the usual “pick any camo as long as it is grey.”
The camo you see on the FC-1 04 is very similar to the ones that appeared on some J-10s which were later sent to the FTTC. The PAF camo is much more like the ones their F-7PGs use, which is a lot darker than the PLAAF J-7Gs. The official PLAAF camo is the same light blue as you see here but without the pattern. The original FC-1 01 color scheme is more like the PAF color scheme.
crobatoYou get smoke when you have incomplete combustion. Poor inlet design that leads to not having sufficient air flow to burn all the fuel is one of the many factors of this. The new DSI inlet should be more efficient than the old inlet and might be a contributing factor for the engine being smokeless this time.
crobatoYes it will also cue the IRST (EOS) if you have selected the IRST. Both radar and IRST can cue the R-73s.
If you have switched to EOS mode with HTMD, the target’s RWR will not warn the target that your fighter’s radar is cueing a missle seeker on it. The EOS emits tiny fast laser pulses on the target which the target’s RWR won’t detect. These pulses provide targeting information back to your aircraft.
crobatoThe HMTD cues the radar which cues R-73/R-27 or R-77 (if the plane has it). The radar would already be making the necessary and very standard IFF at this stage. And it’s a circle, actually representing the radar antenna’s boresight, not a crosshair. No one gets into fratricide in WVR because the radar/FCS normally does IFF, and in WVR combat, radar is used in various “dogfighting” modes, e.g. boresight, vertical scan, etc,.
crobatoPlease post the relevant excerpts in detail.
I got the Su-27SK manual scanned into JPEG. That’s a lot of pages and files. Should you happen to obtain one, the HMTD mode is explained from page 190 to 195. HMTD in Russian is pronounced as ‘shlem’ by the way.
There is nothing specific about the HMTD to the R-73. Rather you use the HMTD to cue the plane’s radar field of vision. When you are in IKTV mode, a circle will appear, and you can use your head to cue the circle, which also cues the radar antenna. In other words, you can not only use the HMTD to lock on the target visually, but also to scan for targets by moving the radar FOV. If you locked on a target via HMTD, you can also use the R-77 and R-27, not just the R-73. This is very similar to using ARH or SARH missiles in boresight mode with both Western and Russian fighters complete with the big circle in front of the HUD head on, and the only difference is the added use of the HMTD on top of it to move the targeting circle beyond the visual boundaries of the HUD. (This Boresight mode is used for N-BVR or J-BVR ranges as in Near Beyond Visual Range or Just Beyond Visual Range).
Sign In
