crobatoOriginally posted by zheng1980
A “squadron” is actually in Chinese called a “Da Dui” which consists of around 12+ aircraft. the “squadron” Rick is referring to is “zhong dui” which is 3 aircraft.
3 aircraft would be considered a “flight” in English.
4 squadrons or 4 x da dui with 12 aircaft each would mean 48 aircraft, or at least 2 regiments.
This is a much more reasonable number and consistent with the Jan 6. Interfax report that Salyut would finish delivering the last batch of 54 engines. That would mean roughly 54 aircraft in all, each with a regiment of 24 to 28 aircraft minus planes that will be used for research and development.
crobatoOriginally posted by SOC
Is it me, or does that seem to imply TVC and not twin engines as previously suggested for the proposed naval variant?
My guess is that the author is mixing this up. But it is a valid point, as TVC helps shorten take off distances.
There is a lot more evidence on work on TVC in China or one such being offered by Russia (TVC AL-31FN), compared to the computer conceptual model of the twin engined J-10.
crobatoOriginally posted by plawolf
alot of that is just what’sbeen circulating on the web for a while now, but given the fact that the newspaper reporting it is unknown to me (and probably most others), the validity of this report and ‘confirmation’ remains to be seen.but judging from the quality of the article (“J-10 is the Russian Suhoi-27 with an improved engine of AL31FN and high-tech fire-control radar that can follow 20 objects within the boundary of 150 km and attack four objects simultaneously.”), one has to be very spetical of its value.
Many Chinese articles tend to have bad english or bad translation. I gather it means “comparable to an SU-27” rather than “is”. When reading such articles, don’t pore over it like a legal document; you have to give allowances for such translation or language mistakes.
crobatoThe real reason why Bush wants to go to Mars is to look for MWDs there, since they’re not finding it in Iraq, that’s plain and obvious. 🙂
crobatoOriginally posted by Hyperwarp
The C-803 has a 255 km air-launch range, and 150-200 km surface launch range. So, its well under the 300 km mark. So therefore no problem, right???? Or did I miss something .:confused:….
That would actually make it exportable, but remember China did bow under US “suggestion” not to export the C-802 to Iran, and the C-802 had lower range than that. In response, the Iranians have reverse engineered the few C-802 they got with the help of North Koreans.
From what I remember, China did sign the MTCR, something you must do in good graces with the US, and therefore with US trade.
Because of the complex US-China bilaterial relationship, Chinese arms exports could be subject to US requests, so in that sense, Chinese arms sales are not completely neutral or without political hamstring.
crobatoOriginally posted by SD-10
C-8XX are more probabley in 700 to 800 Kg class. Basically there are two versions one is Land Attack Cruise missle and the other one is AntiShip missle.
Actually for air launched C-8XX, the weight should be around 500kg, since 200kg is allocated for the rocket booster on the surface to surface version. The air launched version will not need the booster.
Navy version Fantans have launched C-8XX class missiles before. That’s for a plane lighter than the FC-1.
HMS is not an issue; the Chinese have shown local developments of this, and they are made to work for the PL-8/9. It’s a matter of the customer putting a check on the options list.
I doubt that China will sell Pakistan the 400km C-803 variant, as this is againt the MTCR (Missile proliferation treaty).
French radar is an odd choice, considering the BVR options Pakistan is trying to make with the Darter-R and SD-10. I’m still not sure if this is finalized.
crobato33rd Division does not deploy J-11s. The SU-27s and the entire regiment is a training regiment. That’s why they comprise completely of SU-27UBKs, with perhaps a few SKs for pilot final certification.
The deployment of a training regiment as far away from the potential theatre of action is typical practice of the PLA. Generally this area is PLA backwater.
We can leave Brute here with his delusions.
crobatoKya,
You’re really full of BULL.
In that TV interview, the FC-1 designer said those boxes and wires were FBW. There were four boxes, each with a main output. Now tell me what kind of avionics systems that require four identical boxes. The fact that you have the designer showed these boxes right in TV, discussed and explained them is a lot more than mere words in a spec sheet.
This is not to mention that there is a Chinese magazine article on the FC-1 that also mentioned this, and showed a worker tying anti interference insulation around the wires.
Common sense tells you that if this is what the DESIGNER said, this is what it should be. Don’t give me that bull of your common sense, when you don’t even have the common sense to know you can’t fit lower gearboxed AL-31FNs on the MKK.
This is from Hui Tong’s Chinese Military Aviation site, which supports the observation that the FC-1 prototype is currently pitch only in FBW, and mechanical in roll.
“These specifications include a new digital quadruplex FBW system (in pitch only, still mechanical in roll) and a true BVR attack capability with active radar guided medium-range AAMs (SD-10). “
crobatoOriginally posted by Euro18
Indeed a artist work.
But the dish was spotted under testing for months on top of a building at 14 Insititute last year.
The Institute was praised for “great achievement” on radar technology last week on a national newspaper.
Someone reported this in the forums as the KJ-2000 radar but I need to recheck if this label is correct.
As for great achievement, I’m not sure if this is with regards to this radar.
Lab No. 14, or NRIET, has tons of different radars including phase arrays types for air scan and SAM. One type of air search phase array radar was recently sold to Pakistan.
Among No. 14’s achievements is the Type 1471 and 1473 radars used on the J-8II and J-10 respectively.
I’m still trying to determine if the phase array on DDG 170/171 were made by NRIET or the rival LETRI institute, which among other things, did the radar on the J-7E, JH-7 and JH-7A.
crobatoOriginally posted by kya bidu
The FBW of the FC1 (if it exists as you claim) is pretty limited then? The J10 seems to have done better – does it not?
Listen to me closely then.
It is currently in PITCH ONLY.
So yeah, that’s currently limited. It explains completely all the reports saying it has a combination of digital and mechanical systems. Obviously the roll axis is currently mechanical, until the roll axis of the digital FBW is fully resolved.
And you also have no grasp of the chronological aspect of the J-10. It’s been flying YEARS AGO, and as early as 1996, its been rumored that a tech demonstrator may have crashed due to FBW problems. If that is so, then the J-10 has long paid its dues but that was LONG AGO already (Gripen, Typhoon also has crashes given the difficulty of developing an FBW for such an aircraft of this configuration.)
crobatoOriginally posted by kya bidu
Apparently the designers of ALL other FBW airplanes including the J10 (as claimed by you) have managed to do better with their FBW than the FC1 with the installation of primitive wing fences.
FOOL.
What don’t you understand about being a PITCH only FBW at the moment. YOu know what PITCH means?
The J-10 has a very different wing design and it’s obvious it does not suffer from boundary layer bleed.
So obviously there may be problems adapting the J-10’s FBW to the FC-1 without considerably more testing and reprogramming. It this was an analog the problem may have been solved sooner but apparently they’re taking the longer route here.
Without breaking the wing (aka double delta or cranked delta) highly swept wings are going to have boundary layer bleed and you will just be better off raising aspect.
crobatoOriginally posted by kya bidu
The existence of FBW is speculated by you. Why not just admit it instead of further bogging yourself down and risk loosing whatever of your credibility remains. [/B]
Speculated by me.
SCREW YOU.
That was televised in CCTV with the designer of the FC-1 including shots of the FBW system.
It was published by Chinese articles including pictures where a worker is seen braiding the wires of the FBW system with anti interference material.
And go check the Chinese Military Aviation website and read the FC-1 data.
The reason for this is that you indians have been ranting that the FC-1 has no FBW so long that once this religious dogma has been BUSTED COMPLETELY, you go off the wall looking for every slightest suggestion to prove your case. Quite unscientific and anti-analytical.
Its so obvious you are transparent. FOOL.
crobatoYeah that one caught me. I didn’t have that picture in my collection either. Downloaded and saved.
crobatoPretty much so.
I think Richard Fisher got this official too much on vodka to make him talk, and the way it sounds, seems to be like it so…
crobatoOriginally posted by Rick
But the Sukhoi official at MAKS also said China would not be able to make a 100% domestic J-11 for 10 years. I don’t know how much credability he has.
The 10 years sound like more in the sense of a hyperbole in the same sense the ROCAF air chief once said the PLAAF can’t catch up with them in fifty years.
But the fact the Sukhoi official said “can’t” implying technologically, instead of “not allowed” implying legally, means a lot of what it says within the contract.
Sign In
