crobatoFull fuel is 2200kg.
A PL-5 AAM is 85kg, an SD-10 is 180kg. How do you arrive to 2000kg for 6 missiles?
The most common layout is 2 SD-10s and 2 PL-5s which is what you see in the shows. That’s likely the one being used as normal TWO.
The six missile layout is for 6 PL-5Es.
0.9 TWR is also specified in the CAC web site.
crobatoBull$hit. Try hard, but you’ll never find a single part in the Lavi lifted from the F-16. Even the intake is different.
Oh, and what makes you think you’re so sure.
Both look very much alike except for the wings.
The intakes work on the same principle. Maybe it only needs to be smaller due to the engine, but it’s still the same design. The PW1120 engine is basically a detuned version of the F100 itself.
Are you denying that the US didn’t work on this project? They supplied an engine belonging to the same engine family as the F-16. 3 billions of US taxpayer’s funds went to the Lavi project. You got lots of F-16s to study from first hand. Aside from the wings, the plane looks much closer to the F-16 than the J-10 ever was.
So are you saying the J-10 is based on the Lavi but the Lavi is not based on the F-16? Is that it?
And what about your so called righteous indignation about “handouts”? Only when the US threatened to pull out 240 million out of Israel’s annual aid did your government decided to abort the Phalcon deal with China.
It does not matter how the aid started. It’s the fact you accepted them and allow them to affect your policy.
So?
The Lavi’s design was finished in 1985 also. What’s the point?
And why do you think he has no reason to lie?
And what makes you think he would say those just to displrove this “Lavi connection”?
Eh, you’re stretching a bit.
At 1985, the Lavi design could not have possibly be transmitted to the Chinese. It was only after the US shut the program off that the Israelis appear to be looking for another partner.
Listen all, this is really getting to nowhere. Non of us has enough knowledge of either Israel’s aviation industry or China’s.
IMHO, you have to be really blind in order not to see the traces of the Lavi in the J-10.
And I can’t help seeing traces of the Boeing 707 in the Airbus either. Of the F-15 in the Flanker. So what’s your point?
Maybe it’s because I’m not just an internet warrior, and I actually do some research. I been studying the Lavi project, the IAI and the whole aviation sales related security system of Israel. For example, you find an atricle from 1994 saying that “China has completed the building of a Lavi plane in cooperation with Israel”, and that’s without having any pics of the plane to demonstrate of how really the two planes are similar, and a few years later when we can see good pics of the J-10, it is similar to the Lavi. Coincidence?
Everyone in entitled to his opinion.
Completed what? Don’t you know there is a lot of BS articles about China’s military then? It’s a good thing now that we have more of the facts than the myths, although we still need more transparency and information.
A Chinese article reported that in March 30, 1998, a new type of fighter took flight. There was no pictures of the plane, just the celebration and party after it. Experts now agree that this is the day the first J-10 prototype took flight.
That was four years after your 1994. FYI we only started getting a few fuzzy pics of the J-10 circa 2000, and real good ones after 2001. How the hell could you complete a plane in 1994 when the engines were only shipped in 1997?
Even your timeline is way off.
crobatoThis forum is so different so I am just gonna reply to this post.
You said that the Grifo S-7 has 23 modes, to prove that the Grifo S-7 does not lack multi-targets tracing and attacking capability. However working modes does not justify that the Grifo S-7 has multi-targets tracking and attacking capability.
It does not disprove it either.
Do you know that Grifo S-7 is much closer in size and weight to the Grifo-M, Grifo-F (smaller version based from -M) and the Grifo 2000 variants?
Those radars mentioned have multiple tracking ability and two of them are less complex than the Grifo S-7.
It is typical of modern radars to have multiple tracking abiltiy. Factory sources did quote that FC-1 has requirements for multiple tracking. Common sense tells you that this will be the requirement for the S-7 radar as well.
I think the burden of evidence that the Grifo S-7 will not have multiple tracking ability will have to fall on you.
Do I really care if it is Indian? I just need a more proper source, has there been any press releases from Thales about a RC-400 being an option for the JF-17?
That you are right to ask this question since I myself are looking for more evidence on this one.
crobatoSorry. Clarification. Thrust should be 8300kg, which is the same as the RD-33 and unchanged. No change other than the gearbox locations plus perhaps the usual minor refinements we come to expect from any learning process. At TOW 9068kg for the FC-1, this puts TWR just above 0.9. Low, but decent. There is still quite room for improvement in that engine,
crobatoThe thrust figures I’ve seen range from 8100, 8300 and 8600kg. With a combat weight of around 9100kg, that would give you a TWR of 0.9 at least. By combat weight I mean full internal fuel and four to six AAMs, two of them should be SD-10s which does not weight that much. I think 8100kg and 8300kg are the most believable. The 8600 figure could be that of the WS-13.
I think it’s decent, though nothing to holler about. Puts you in th same straight line performance class as the Gripen, the A-50 and the Ching Kuo. Instead of 70 to 80% the field performance of an F-16, you’re now at 90%.
On single engined planes, you don’t push your luck on the engine thrust. Give some more margin to safety and reliabiltiy. I think CAC’s decision seems okay.
About the engines, are they serious with that many? If this is true, then indeed the PLAAF may be contemplating on a big sized order. I can see how MiG is involved with the FC-1; they’re the parent company doing the engines and thus have an investment to see this through. I can’t see how the PLAAF is convinced until they must have been given a very nice sticker price.
It gives added motivation if MiG would provide its MiG 1.44 experience to Chengdu to help create a twin engined RD-93 J-10. It will help them sell more engines!
This will peg the question how CAC going to make that many airframes. The J-10 alone could occupy their lines. They may have to stop J-7G production completely, including subcontracting to Guizhou, and recruit all the smaller firms—Guizhou, Nanchang and Hongdu—to help make the FC-1.
crobatoCongraultations to our shining Comrade Hu for his glorious victory against all Imperialist candidates. He shall be worthy of being the ‘People’s Moderator’.
🙂
============================================================
On ACIG, I think it has a “life” problem if you will. A lof of the fun in an aviation forum is the ability to post pictures, not just link to them. So yes I think this handicaps ACIG.
crobatoJust about every Typhoon buyer is from Europe or a member of the consortium.
The French is right that the Typhoon won’t be a viable export model. It’s not technical but bureaucratic. With so many parts from different countries, including the US, you would need to get export clearance from each country involved, and one alone saying no could scuttle the whole deal.
Personally I’m not fond of commitee planes either.
Where the French missed out is that a 70 to 80 million dollar fighter is going to have a hard time finding a market.
crobatoI wonder how much indigenous design the Lavi has considering much of the body appeared lifted off from the F-16.
As for design and aerodynamic priniciples, the Chinese did had the J-9 project, which is a delta, canard and side intakes. The Chinese also experimented on the successful tech demonstrator the J-8II ATX, which added movable canards on the J-8II design. Much of the basic aerodynamic principles for canard-delta is quite public in the eighties, and the design was the trendy rage in those days (EFA, Rafael, Gripen, Kfir, Viggen, etc,.). No big deal to think about doing canards—conceptual drawings of Taiwan’s IDF project included a Gripen like canard delta.
The J-9 project began in the mid sixties and ended around 1980. The J-10 conceptual work began around 1984 to 1985. It would be years then before the Lavi project was cancelled and the IAI was free to be “consultants”. If they were did consult the Chinese on the project, the conceptual design of the J-10 already existed, and it is probably because of this existing layout which could have given reason for looking Israeli consultancy. In other words, you seem to be designing a similar aircraft I’m doing so I’m asking for some help. The germ of the idea wasn’t from Israel in the first place.
During the J10 handover ceremony in 2003, the designer, Soon Wen Cong, referred to the J-10 like an 18 year old child that has finally grown up and enlisted. 18 years, and this puts the beginning of the project around 1985.
crobatoIt always makes me wonder what requirements are set here on this forum for a basic Fulcrum from the early 80s to be called a capable machine. So far I have found following:
– its radar range should be at least the one of slotted APG-68
The N010 actually had good range for its size, and quite comparable to the slotted APG-68 assuming some figures and better ranging than the APG-66 if one figure I’ve seen on the basic APG-66 is to be believed.
It needed more modes for sure though. That’s where the Zhuk comes in. I think the Zhuk-M is a good match to a “modern” APG-68.
– the range of a blank Fulcrum should be comparable to F-16 fitted with three additional tanks 🙂
– fuel consumption of two RD-33 engines should be less than one P&W F100 or GE F110, the power should be considerably higher 🙂
The power of the Fulcrum is quite adequete but the engine can improve on reliability and economy issues which was addressed in later RD-33 versions. MiG incidentally owns the company making these engines. and stands to profit a lot if China orders a large batch of RD-93 engines.
crobatoSo if it takes time for a Mig-29 to get to mach 2.3 and the F-16 can never get past mach 2 what range will the F-16s IR guided missile have and will it be enough for a tailchase engagement of a highly supersonic Fulcrum?
Errm… Sidewinder Mach 2.5…
Err Python 3 Mach 3. Sparrow Mach 3. AMRAAM Mach 4.
What hardened bases, I was talking about destroying runways to prevent the use of AWACS aircraft… when it comes to taking out deep hardened underground bases those 4km/s warheads will be what buccanner pilots call buckets of instant sunshine…
Garry,
Don’t you know the US has these pavement kits that can be swiftly deployed and fill up runaway holes in about fifteen minutes?
If you use bomblets, they got special tractors to scoop them up.
There is a guy in the CDF named Col. Yu. The dear Colonel is a combat engineer with an expertise on these matters. Maybe you should talk to him. I’ve learned from his posts, how quickly you get a base running back again in
no time.
The Germans weren’t overwhelmed when they were taking on all of western europe at once. They weren’t overwhelmed by the Soviets when they invaded… they weren’t defeated till their opponents stopped trying to fight with WWI tactics and adopted the German tactics for themselves. In the first few months of Barbarossa they took about 3 million prisoners and captured millions of items of equipment and resorces. For the next 4 years they didn’t capture that much again… it was a change of tactics that was earned and applied and eventually cost Germany everything.
We are not talking about tactics here. We are talking about the most useful weapons the combatants have. And despite the presence of more powerful tanks, the staple and workhorse of the Germans is the Mark IV, the Americans, the Sherman, and the Russians the T-34.
All have common qualities, the most essential are being, simple, reliable, and operable. Even in the sixties, some Arabs are still using Panzer Mk 4s in their inventory.
Hahahaha… what will be simple or cheap about JSF?
The original idea was simple and cheap, before it got corrupted by the bureaucracies and commitees. The JSF is on its way to be the most “commiteed” aircraft in history, and that will be no good.
Certainly the F-4s had problems with smaller more nimble fighters, but I would doubt SA will have anything to do with the Mk 1 eyeball today or in the near future. I mean look at the twin Backhawk shootdown by F-15s. They were supposed to visually check the targets but they were so afraid of getting too close that they misidentified the aircraft and shot them down. Are you suggesting that if the targets were jets they would have gotten closer?
The F-15’s IFF should have been able to pick out the Blackhawks. The US invested a lot in proper IFF.
You seem to have missed the point. WVR is still a major part of air combat to come despite BVR. There are circumstances where it will just happen.
What do you mean poor taste? Ebola and Marburg Fever were both weaponised by the Soviets and were fitted to “spare” SS-18 missiles. Both are hemmoraging type diseases with similar fatal effects (and no cures).
And you won’t think the US would not reply in kind?
A larger more capable aircraft is often more expensive. To claim that makes it some sort of maintainence beast is a little melodramatic.
But you cannot deny that they do have more issues.
The fact that former operators of the Fulcrum don’t want to spend money to upgrade a cold war aircraft to a standard where it wouldn’t be expensive to maintain just suggests some short term money saving.
Yet, they’re willing to upgrade the MiG-21.
Either they feel they don’t need the performance the Fulcrum offers anymore, or they want to go western but can’t afford it so they will get rid of the only capable migs they have and in five or ten years time claim they need a real fighter… can’t afford new migs but want cheap F-16s. If the production figures for JSF are to be believed then there should be tons of F-16s available at low cost.
India could afford to upgrade their MiG-29s but they didn’t. They choose the MiG-21 instead. They could have bought MiG-29s for their interim plane to stand in for the LCA, but they didn’t. They choose the Mirage 2000, which unit to unit, costs more than an SU-30MKI. The M2000 does not have a fancy phase array radar, or TVC, or huge fuel load and payloads. But they know from the experience of their 2000Ds, that this type is a highly operable and reliable workhorse.
As I said before… if the Mig-29 was too expensive to maintain and operate why would the Russians keep them in service for so long while withdrawing all the singles. They must have a reason.
Because the singles are too old, and for that matter, a lot of Fulcrums are not exactly in serviceable condition either.
crobatoSo? IDF/AF gets almost all of its aircraft free of charge. Unlike Swedes, Israelis could develope a horse dung without US funding and technology, not Lavi. Money talks, buddy. The one who holds the budget is the king.
That’s quite true.
Take a look at another indigenous fighter project that took place right about the same time as the Lavi. Like the Lavi this one also heavily relied on US techs.
But this one went on to become successful and saw service.
The real difference in success between the ROC/F-CK-1 vs. Israel/Lavi is that the former paid for all their expenses, paid for all the US contractors with its own pocket, and did it without any cost to the US taxpayer.
You get genuine sovereignty if you’re not taking handouts from someone else.
crobatoFirst of all, the canopy of the J-10 is smaller than the Lavi’s. In the Lavi, the pilot actually sits higher than the J-10’s. The canopy of the J-10 reminds more the canopies used in the F-6 in the way it slopes to the rear.
Ever seen the MiG-29 Finback? Seen the back of an SU-27? The back of the J-10 curves much more like these planes than the Lavi.
The ventral fins of the J-10 appears deeper than the Lavi’s. Dual ventral fins occur in many Chinese designs from the J-8 to the JJ-7 and even the FC-1. In an early drawing of the J-10 which you can see in FAS, the ventrals were not even there and the wings had a double delta look.
The design of a shark and a dolphin also has too many coincidences. There are only going to be so many ways you can design a plane that two planes with similar mission goals can end up being very similar.
For example, the Finbacks vs. the Flagons.
True, Israelis were involved in China in the nineties, but their consultancy work appears far more in the electronics and avionics side.
The wings are just way too different—even their aspects are not the same.
crobatoIts a myth that the F-22 uses “an i960 processor”. It uses banks and banks of processors, both i960 and PowerPC. Individually a PIV might beat each processor, but there are LOADS of em in there, in a big rack thingy (CIP).
No matter how many you have of them, you’re not going to match the floating point prowress of a single Athlon. Trying to break down a single math intensive task into a whole bunch of embedded processors is going to amount to a major problem of its own. Embedded processors are not multiprocessors by the way (the type designed to synchronize with each other like processors on the same control, memory and I/O bus like Xeon processors).
Embedded processors are a different animal. They are meant for controlling devices, not floating point calculation or Fourier Transforms, which you are going to need for SAR modes or high resolution analysis of frequency data. You can use DSPs or Digital Signal Processors for that, which is like a dedicated coprocessor intended for these purposes. These things are more important when it comes to radar performance. A major specialist on this field is Texas Instruments.
crobatoKen:
You can arrive at the 10,000 kg fuel load for the MKI if you assume that the volume of the No.4 fuel tank is the same as the one on the Su-35. i.e 1990 liters. Page 283 second column, 1st paragraph. Thats 4020 + 5030 + 1350 + 1990 (instead of 1270) = 12,690 liters. That with Fuel Density of 0.785= 9,961.65 or 38.35 kgs short of the 10K mark. This ties in with the table on Page 303 and what Harry has posted.
Could be but we will stick to the factory figures for now. The SU-35 is KnAAPO’s field, not IAPO’s, and there could be internal structural differences in the airframes between the SU-35 and the SU-30 that could allow for increasing the size of the fuel tank. In short, you have to make way in your airframe to make space for the fuel tank. As you know, structural changes is not an easy modification.
crobatoSo what is keeping them from replacing those ancient CPUs with a Pentium 4?
Foor example, as I understand one of the big issues in radar and radar ground mapping is computing power, so wouldnt such a move make a big difference?
Moore’s cycle runs much much faster than military development cycles. You could see how fast they can develop the F-22 vs. how fast can Intel develop a new processor.
Sign In
