crobatoKanwa is an idiot. You can put different radars in the same face, albeit if you can conquer the interference problem. But this is exactly what the Raytheon MPQ-153 did when they integrated all the radars, search, tracking, fire control, into a single unit and array face for the Patriot. This tech may been obtained by the Chinese, who also use single faced multipurpose radars such as the HT-233 unit for the HQ-9 and the H-200 unit for the KS-1A. The pattern in the 052C radar (as with photographs) does not suggest a monolithic design, but rather, one big search radar in the middle shaped like a diamond, with the four corners that may be other radars shaped like triangles that may be for targeting.
crobatoIn the nineties, the PLAN was led by an admiral who was an admitted carrier buff. He was at least serious in acquiring all the technology and knowhow, buying junk carriers which were all later turned to theme parks, had serious talks with the Russians to acquire Su-33s, even made a mock catapault runaway to train pilots on. But since he got retired, the pro-sub lobby of the PLAN took over big time, which results in the current heavy sub centric strategy you have today, supported with surface ships.
crobatoNow that is what you call a great news scoop.
crobatoFrom that angle the pic remembers me of the F-20A
6 tons empty
4 tons weaponsload
12,7 tons MTOW
8,53 m span with AAMs
14,4 m length
4,2 m height
18,6 qm wing area
F404 with 8164 kp
2334 km/h at 13100 m
17315 m service ceiling
3984 km ferry range with 3*1250 l ETs
1019 km radius with 2*1250 l ETs, 2 Sidewinders and 5 bombs Mk-82
2 guns 20 mm with 225 rounds each
2 AIM-7F and 2 Sidewinders or up to 6 AIM-9s
4 Mavericks or 9 Mk-82 with 227 kg each or 4 Paveway LGBs
Full 9G capability
While the specs are not exact, the FC-1 specs are similar, for example, the 6300kg empty weight which may be reduced by the inlet change, the 3900kg payload, similar maximum takeoff loads and engine maximum thrust. Form follows function in this case.
Some differences though, the radar may be bigger, there are dual ventral fins, and the planform resembles more of an F-16.
All in all, its shaping up not too badly.
crobatoIt seems like the pakistani will sure get a DSI FC-1/JF-17.
This confirms that the inlet change is indeed official.
crobatoFirst, the Fregats and Top Plates are not phase array, but mechanically steered ones.
Second, based on quoted ranges, the Chinese ships might have an advantage in reach. The YJ-83 is reported for 160km, with 255km observed from an air launched position.
Third, the 052C carries nearly only half of the Congo’s missiles, but then each missile (HHQ-9) is probably larger than a Standard, which might give it greater slant range (the useful range of a SAM, as opposed to ballistic flight range). The 052C is observed to have some very large antiship missiles, giving rise to the possibility that the Chinese may have cooked up either a very long range subsonic ASM, or a design similar to the Sunburn.
So pretty much the 052C’s capabilities are pretty blurred now, but there is a possibility it may even exceed that of the Kongo in punch and reach, though not in endurance. As for integration, I don’t think it’s a good bet to suggest it does not have all these capabilities as well.
Fourth, for the third slot in the future, I think the new Sovremanny 956EMs with the Kashtans and improved Sunburns up to 240km might be a better fit. Both ships are already launched and in trials, though a small fire in one of the ships might delay its delivery to China. Heck they may make a run for the first and second slot.
The capabilities of the 051C appears also blurred right now, but this bears watching.
Fourth, I think the best frigate in Asia right now is the Talwars and it has enough capability to threaten the top 3 DDGs. If it is a top 3 DDG and FFG classification, I would put it on no. 3 right now.
crobatoThat attached Thumbnail from Plawolf reminds me of the intake on a F-16 testbed.
This is called a diverterless intake. It was tested on an F-16 yes, with good success.
crobatoThe better informed ones are reduced to look into the Internet for some pics and a small captions. By the way, are there Chinese military aviation magazines to buy in China similar to most countries?
There are plenty of military magazines being sold in the streets of big cities and they’re quite detailed and informative, often with long text, and some are in the weekly basis. You have no idea how much information you can get when you’re inside China.
There are also many PLA provided pictures in these magazines which people scan and paste in forums.
crobatoLooks like the J-10 to me (at least in the first video, I can’t open the second one).
And the canopy is in fact that of the FC-1, I got it confused looking at a picture of J-10 1003.
My immediate impression was also that of a J-10, and I’m surprised how much similiar the canopies of the FC-1 and the J-10 actually looks. But it is an FC-1, definitely the secord or third flying proto.
One other pic in the thread also confirms that the FC-1 is stressed for 600kg (2 250kg bombs + pylon<100kg ) in the outer wing hardpoint.
crobatoAt no time, did the Low Blow radar ever pick up that F-117. The Serbs had figured out NATO flight patterns, altitudes, and times they would be arriving. They knew when to start shooting, and it so happened an F-117 was caught in the blast radius of an inactive (i.e. it wasn’t tracking) SA-3.
And you can do that visually?
This is the kind of battlefield intel you get with operating radars.
crobatoYeah, the camo pattern does look like the second flying FC-1 prototype. Its quite interesting to see how the canopies are so similar.
On the J-10s some of them have the triangular warning signage under the canopy, but many don’t.
crobatoThe Python V, Elta, Lavi, Phalcon are Israeli feats of engineering, the US has taken measures to punish israel for it`s deals with China;
The Python 4 with its twin canards and gimballing seeker, probably got those ideas from an R-73. The R-73 was the first to introduce the gimbal seeker (a seeker that rotates around a ball joint) for maximum field of view. One does wonder how the Israelis managed to take a good look at an R-73, and I wonder if that is how the Israelis played their China card.
crobatoRemember the Su-27? How the first version, T-10, wasn’t up to scratch, and it went through a total redesign? By Crobato’s logic, the Su-27 can’t have any connection to the T-10 because of the various differences in detail design.
A totally different wing, a totally different rudder, and a totally different fuselage is not just a detail change, boy. Nice to see your true colors coming out Paul.
When you want to have a modern lightweight fighter, you have the following alternatives, given the requirements that the intake has to be canted inward for airflow in a turn:
A. Conventional lerxed layout, underside intake
B. Conventional lerxed layout, side intakes
C. Canard Delta layout, underside intake
D. Canard Delta layout, side intakes
Pure and tailed delta layout is tossed as it does not turn well as any of the above. Dual rudder layout is redundant for single engine designs.
If I copy A, I would be accused of copying an F-16. Well if you have B, that’s the FC-1, but you can still be accused of copying an F-16 like the F-CK-1. If I copy C, I would be accused of copying the Lavi or Typhoon. If I copy D, I would be accused of copying the Rafale.
Do you think Russians would let Israelis know about technical secrets of the AL-31FN? I doubt it. One can make a greater case for the Russians to have provide assistance with the structural engineering to support the engine and provide air flow calculations that would be needed to design the intake tunnel. Ditto with the variable intake. This isn’t just speculation, this is an obligation an engine supplier has to perform.
If the J-10’s nose was ever considered for the Zhemchug, then the nose assembly of the plane would have considered its weight and cooling requirements, hence the bigger and rounder nose. Although the Zhemchug was not ultimately chosen at least for the first batch, it does better explain the more MiG-29 like nose, as well as the Fullback style hump on the back of the J-10’s canopy.
over_g is more correct here. There is a blistering amount of ideas that were taken all over from an entire spectrum of aircraft.
Tail – More like Typhoon
Intake and engine duct – more like a Typhoon
four point fuselage hardpoint – Mirage 2000
A radar that seems similar to the RDY in paper.
Wing planform, aspect and slat location more similar to the Gripen
Canard design and aspect more similar to the Gripen.
Nose and back that seems more like a MiG-29C.
So it does look the plane harvested ideas that were already publicly available already in pictures of these aircraft. But ideas are only one percent of an aircraft. The real devil lies in the implementation and the details.
crobatoJ-10 has been caught in some TV pics actually. Maybe it’s not just conveniently around in this segment.
crobatoDoes anyone have this picture of a J-10 doing the loop?
Here is one in the hanger.
A screenshot allegedly of the specs.
Sign In
