Originally posted by SabreAce
[B]The bloc 50/52 is no great shakes so it does’nt say much about your LCA if that’s the case. But I’d say that the LCA is already looking better, atleast technologically.

YOu are joking right? You’re really full of it (wishful thinking).

You don’t even have an operational fighter yet, and the Block 50/52 is already a proven weapon that’s been around since what, early to mid nineties?

F-16s can claim whatever they want for maximum payload (which is actually supposed to be 9000 kg for that little fighter) but for any sort of agility, they would normally be limited to around 5000 kg. The F-16 is known to be a lousy handler and mover under loaded conditions. The 70s design was itself designed to be just a simple dogfighter with 2 or 4 AAMs. When you put larger BVRAAMs under that little wing, drag is gonna increase a lot.

How do you know that the F-16 is a lousy handler?

Ever flown one?

Want to ask real Viper pilots?

Don’t talk about things you really don’t know about or I will demand from you where your authority in your claims about the Viper’s performance.

How does the things you mention make it different from a Mirage 2000 (6 G rating on bomb loads, 9G rating on pure AA missiles only, 10G for emergency).

Bullcrap. Without considering the Gs pulled at certain speeds, the theoretical turn rates for all fighters would remain the same. If the FCS is’nt going to allow you to exceed 8 Gs, you simply can’t turn that hard. You sound as if an 8 G turn is equal to a 9 G one. 😀

You’re the one full of bullcrap. You’ve never flown an F-16 and you sound like you’re an expert on it.

You keep forgeting that the FCS can be adjusted to the loads of the aircraft, or that it can be be set to be overriden.

F-5s have surprised many opponents and are very manueverable but no one is going to embarass himself by saying that it, in general, can turn with fighters of a more modern design. The MiG-21s themselves are known to be similar, but when push comes to shove, they are’nt comparable with modern fighters.

Oh golly, don’t misquote or misinterpret results from Top Gun school. The only time the F-5 can surprise an F-15 is when a Top Gun instructor is on the F-5 and the terms of engagement is simply just WVR, without factoring BVR.

On an open arena allowing everything, the F-5 cannot even come close to an F-16, which will just turn and burn, leaving the F-5 badly struggling behind. In most cases it will be see first, and shoot first, something that will favor the plane with the more powerful radar.

You know what is sustained G, do you? It is the G you get from about how fast you can travel the circumference of a circle, and sustained turns is about sheer power. Try getting 9G out of a sustained 2km radius turn. That alone can leave the F-5 behind and put the F-16 on its tail. High power also means easier vertical or yo yo maneuvers, using the vertical plane to cut across turns (the Americans and the Germans made great use of such maneuvers against more agile opponents to great effect).

In Zhuhai they showed a new compressor stage and “2nd generation” crystal blades. The new stage is suppose to raise some engine’s performance to 32,000lbs max thrust. I presume its for the WS-10 engine.

I presume China may try to evolve the Flanker like they did with the J-7 and the Dauphine, although I believe that Sukhoi still wants some control of the development process, and of course, money.

Interesting. Do you have any scale comparisons between the J-10 and the JH-7’s nose?

Google, have you studied this antenna as well. This one also seems to be rather big, looks like just under a meter across. It seems bigger than the same antenna fitted on JH-7 083. I mention this since the JL-10A is most probably a candidate for the J-10 radar as well, as many in the Chinese internet boards have opently suggested.

I won’t give up on LETRI’s JL-10A as a still future candidate for a future J-10 attack variant. It seems to have a more developed air to ground/ship support, in terms of missiles like the Kh-31 and the C-803.

Originally posted by Rick
Interesting to note the times on the photo. The first was 12:32 and second 12:58. Pretty short flight.

I think it’s a first flight. If this thing has been flying before, such a beast would be easily spotted in a populated area, and we would have photos and reports before.

So here’s a toast, if this is truly a first flight.

Thx, Google, I also remember seening that airshow picture of the IL-76-AWACS.

KLJ-3 is the factory designation for the radar, as NRIET’s products tend to use a 3 letter suffice—e.g. CLC-2. This is in comparison with NRIET”s competitor, LETRI, which uses a two letter prefix, like for example, JL-10A.

Type 1473 may be the PLA assigned designation for the radar, as the “14” may mean Lab No. 14, which means NRIET. The PLA has numbers for defense industries like CAC which I think is Factory 613. Likewise CLETRI may be Lab no. 2, like in the radar Type 204 first used in the J-8II.

If google’s calcularions are correct, it may seem that KLJ-3/Type 1473 may be intended for both J-10 and the J-11. This may raise my estimates for the radar ranges of the J-10, and the possibility of fitting indigenous Chinese radar on the J-11 to be much sooner than previously realized.

Likewise too, it may suggest that the PLA may have evaluated Zhuk MSE (radar intended for the MKK3) for the J-10 as well, and not Zhemchug.

This old Kanwa newsclip may suggest that NRIET may have absorbed some N001 technology. However, the timeline of the Type 1471 radar, the planar array first used on the J-8D, goes earlier than that, having perhaps seen service as early as 1999, and was in development as early as 1993-1995 in the J-8C. The Type 1471 (KLJ-1) may be the direct ancestor to the Type 1473 (KLJ-3).

Kanwa News Oct. 20, 1999> China is making good progress in absorbing the technology of SU27 SK N001E fire control radar system, which is a part of the technology transaction program of producing SU27SK, a Russian military industry source disclosed in an exclusive interview with Kanwa reporter. At present, NRIET Company of Nanjing is responsible for the work of the radar system. According to the agreement, Russian NIIP Design Bureau provides the complete sets of equipment to NRIET to assemble N001E radar first, then it will be gradually made by China itself. The completion of antenna production is scheduled by 2000.
N001E is the export version of SU27/ N001 radar with which Russia equipped its Air Force. N001E has a forward hemisphere detection range of 100 km, an aft hemisphere detection range of 40 km, and has a capacity of track-while-scan of 10 air targets and simultaneous attack of 2 targets.
A source released to Kanwa that The Su27/N001E of Chinese version has a higher frequency, compared with the same type Vietnamese and Ethiopia imported from Russia. But the active radar guided AAM can not be controlled by N001E, while SU30MKK/ N001VE produced for China later on can control R77 active radar guided AAM.
The weapons used coordinately with N001E radar include R27R1 and R27ER1 semi-radar guided AAMs, R27T1 and R27ET1 IR guided medium range AAMs, R73E IR guided short range AAM, FAB500, RBK500, FAB250M62, FAB250M54, and FAB100 bombs, and S25 S13 and S8 rockets.(Kanwa news)

Originally posted by mr.bean
i see.

btw is there any other fighter jet from russia that china is interested in buying other than SU-30MKK3? there is a SU-34 thread & that plane seems a notch above the SU-30’s. wouldn’t china be interested in buying, or better negotiate a contract to manufacture that bird?

I think the PLA may have looked at that possibility, but I doubt any more serious actions beyond that. The SU-34 is still under development and may prove too costly.

I wager that the PLA would—as always—take a more evolutionary and organic approach, evolving the MKK instead, into the MKK4(?) or something more like an SU-35UB fighter, which resembles an MKK with canards. TVC is a likely option, and I am thinking they may get serious with the phase array Sokol (Zhuk MSFE) radar or the Panda radar (N001VEP + Pero). I feel between the two, the Sokol might be more likely, as this system may offer a lesser costly option with its nonequistant field; may provide better multiple targeting engagement and track while scan; better ranges; and perhaps a better performing SAR ground mode. It also has a cleaner design than Panda, which is literally built on top of the old N001 system.