crobatoAVEN was being tested on the WS-10 and WS-10A engines. As far as being flight tested I don’t know though I doubt it. Most probably a J-10 would have flight tested the AL-31FN with the 3D TVC anyway, given that the PLAAF have almost ordered the engine.
crobatoThe MiG-21 design is a sound design for me except for the nose. I like to see something with a solid nose, with either the intake on the bottom like the Ye-8 here, or with side intakes, like the JL-9 trainer. And yes, must have the double delta wings too.
crobatoBut would pixelised camo be effective against EO devises?
The camo have to be in such a way that it has to break the outline of the ship. That means the darker portions must reach all the way to the border outline of the ship, and the camo has be drawn in broad swaths.
The second requirement is that no two ships have identical camo designs. Each ship must have a unique camo design.
crobato– No T-tail for me or any variation there of. These kinds of tails limit the size of horizontal rear stabilizers and that will bring issues of maneuverbility. So that rules out the Starfighter, Phantom, Voodoo for me, among others.
– No round open inlet nose. These kinds of noses limit the size of the radar and its field of view. That rules out planes like the BAC Lightning or MiG-21.
– The plane must still have a tail for separate elevator control. I don’t like the same control surfaces working as both aileron and elevators. So that rules out tailless deltas, like the Mirage III.
– No variable wing stuff. Too complicated.
– Must have low aspect wings with a long root to make the wings sturdy.
Conclusion, I would like something like this:
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/RAM/ye-8.html
Which is the Ye-8.
Or the MiG-23 with fixed wings like in one prototype. Baring all these, I would go with the Mirage F1.
crobatoSalyut tried to sell a 3D nozzled AL-31FN, and that engine is more advanced than the one in the MKI because it has complete 3D TVC, instead of just 2D. Salyut tried to sell the engine to China but the engine failed to meet the minimum 1000 flight hours requirement, though it managed to reach 750 hours. China have already shown this engine like in three Zhuhai air shows already, and China has already its own 3D TVC nozzle (AVEN) back in 2004, but the PLAAF does not appear to be that interested in pursuing TVC any more as opposed to next generation WOBS SRAAMs that can make TVC issues moot.
crobatoThe Soviet Union did grant licenses, being communist does not mean you do not grant licenses, only means the profit is not for a single individual but for the collectivity, China broke the license and it was broken because it broke its political and economical commitments with the Soviet Union, Russia granted the license of the SU-27 but the Soviets of the MiG-21
BS. The Soviet Union does not acknowledge even the sheer concept of a license which mean intellectual property ownership, because the concept of ownership does not exist in the Soviet Union. The SU ripped off Western designs at will, such as the Tu-4 from the B-29 and the Atoll from the Sidewinder. So if Russia tries to claim fees from every AK-47 made, perhaps the US should claim fees from every Atoll ever made.
Here i brought you a fact that you know multirole brought to life last time here is the case
辉：我国的航空工业与苏联航空似乎有着千丝万缕的关系，您认为苏联航空技术对我国都产生了哪 些影响呢？
王老：如果没有苏联手把手教，我们完全是空白的。＂东风＂１０７的设计队伍里还有苏联专家呢，包括歼８的一 些气动特性，我们都参考了苏联的一些设计成果。当然，＂师傅领进门，修行在个人＂（笑了）。
Translation:
Wong Hui (journalist): Our aviation industry and Soviet aviation seem to have a thoroughly intertwined relationship. What influences do you think Soviet aviation technology have had in our country?
Wong Nanso: We wouldn’t have anything without hand-in-hand tutelage from the Soviets. Even the Dongfeng 107 (early Chinese supersonic fighter) design team included Soviet experts. Also regarding some aspects of the J-8 aerodynamic characteristics, we studied some results from Soviet design. Of course, “the abbot can open the door to the monastery, but spiritual achievement is up to the individual”. (laughs)
source http://bbs.meyet.com/dispbbs_24_146814_1_116.html
from the original thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=78280&page=5
this supports the russian assertion that the Ye-152 was the base for the J-8 as it was claimed by different russian sources
Документация по Е-152А (без двигателей, ракет и РЛС) была передана Китаю, который использовал ее при создании истребителя-перехватчика J-8.
It simply says the documentation for the Ye-152A was transfered to China which in turn the chinese used it to build their own J-8I fighter interceptor
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/e/152/a/e152a.htmIn fact in page 19 of this article they say that the Shengyang aircraft factory did build several aircraft among them several licensed Russian models such as the Yak-18, MiG-15, MiG-17, Mi-4 and some engines and later in page 20 they say с конца 70-х гг. выпускает J-8 (на основе Е-152А) or in few words they started building in the late 1970s the J-8I aircraft based upon the Ye-152A
http://orel3.rsl.ru/enciklop/avia/sh-ya.pdf
в 1959 году лётчик-испытатель Г.К. Мосолов осуществил первый полёт истребителя-перехватчика Е-152А, с двумя двигателями Р11Ф-300 (устанавливались на МиГ-21 и Як-28). Позже документация по Е-152А (без двигателей, ракет и РЛС) была передана Китаю, который использовал её при создании истребителя-перехватчика J-8.Here they claim again the Ye-152 was the base for the J-8
http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/kakula/post44317331/here we have another source even a video about the J-10 being a LAVI clone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJoTNOqFrNk&feature=related
[В дальнейшем стало известно, что в формировании облика нового самолета J-10 принимали участие специалисты израильской фирмы IAI, передавшие Китаю технологию своего истребителя «Лави in a later phase was known that Israeli IAI specialists did participate in the J-10 program transfering Lavi technology to China
http://www.testpilot.ru/china/chengdu/j/10/j10.htm
При этом планер J-10 разработан с учетом конструкции израильского истребителя Lavi. The J-10 airframe was based upon the IAI lavi
http://www.avia.ru/press/6270/
Как добавляет сайт Lenta.ru, истребитель J-10 разработан в Китае на основе израильского экспериментального самолета Lavi, документация по которому была передана Китаю в 90-х годах прошлого века.
The J-10 was based upon the IAI Lavi technical documentation that was sold to China in the last part of the XX century in the decade of the 1990s
The usual troll/spam/wall of text idiot you are. Multirole only confirmed what I was saying all along, and the text proves it. Chinese engineers did study under Soviet guidance, but that does not mean the J-8I are directly copied from the YE-152. As a matter of fact, it only proves and proves my point, that you don’t have any PROOF that the J-8I is a direct machine to machine copy of the YE-152.
As for the rest of the text, Russian internet sources have proven themselves to be dubious one way or another. Remember how you insisted the Chinese cannot build the J-11B and how you love to quote texts?
Egg in your face huh?
You and the credibility of your sources have been debunked by their inability to predict and account for actual and future events.
Get real.
As for the Russian case, here is some research from Amiganguli of the SDF that shows how Russia has no case on this case.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/wipo_trips.htm
(g) Security Exceptions
28. The Agreement provides a general exception for matters which are deemed to be essential to national security interests. In particular, a Member is not required to furnish any information if it considers disclosure to be contrary to its essential security interests. In addition, it may take any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests relating to fissionable materials or the materials from which they are derived, relating to traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment, or taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations. It may also take any action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security (Article 73).
crobatoArthur, note that I mentioned that I mentioned fighter planes, whereas the above products are not fighters, but range from airliners, trainers to helicopters. I would like to ask if the J-12 is J-XX.
As per sinodefence.com, the J-8 was a copy of of the MiG-21. Only the J-8 II featured side-intakes instead of the centre. In 1988, the J-8 II was part of the cancelled US technical assistance program. Either the J-7 with side-intakes, or the J-8 II with sides already, were later to become the FC-1.
In PLAAF, the FC-1 will be designated as the J-9.
As we discussed earlier, JH-7 is a fighter-bomber (as per sinodefence). Regardless of whether it is empirical or consciously done, the entire J-X series are locally made foreign planes only.
China must realize that these are not Cold-War times, when a MiG-21 could be copied as the J-7 without legal implications. The implications of this may be that Russia may be hesitant to export military equipment to China in the future.
crobato, as per sinodefence.com, the J-8 is an elongated MiG-21 only, whereas the J-10 is based on the canceled Lavi plane, the designs of which were sold by Israel to China.
The J-7 is not a licenced copy, as China exported J-7s to many nations but without paying any royalty or proceeds to Russia. India too produces MiG-21s under licence, but has not exported it till date. Some units of the J-11 B are unlicenced copies, as per the news report posted earlier, and for which Russia is seeking legal options.
Please note that the IAF also gives “code” names to fighters, such as “Baaz” for the MiG-29, “Bison” for the MiG-21, “Vijay” for MiG-23 etc. These are to facilitate inter-communication only.
Again, note that India does not re-export these fighters or ships under a new nomenclature.
There was no such thing as licensing when the Soviet Union provided plans and blueprints of the MiG-21 to China, just like it provided blueprints for AK-47s to every Communist ally. The SU itself had no problems directly copying whatever it could lay its hands on any Western equipment, such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Exactly why Russia could not collect royalties for the AK-47s.
How is the J-8 a copy of a MiG-21? Just because it has the same general layout of a tailed delta wing with a round inlet nose? Every dimension of the J-8 is greatly different from a MiG-21. The wings are much larger, have a higher angle or sweep, the fuselage is not just elongated, but made to support two engines, with the requisite fuel storage, air volume and air flow redesigned and recalculated needed to feed the two engines.
A lot of these are simplistic opinion from people who cannot do the math, that you cannot simply stuff two engines into a MiG-21 airframe and expect it to fly. The entire airframe and structural stress and calculations have to be redesigned and redone from top to bottom and that goes with the wings.
FYI, the J-8II only shares 30% commonality with the J-8I.
The J-10 only shares a general similarity of configuration with the Lavi; not a single part of both aircraft are interchangeable.
And what’s that BULL**** from Star49 about FBW? FBW are completely customized to every aircraft it is designed for and cannot be interchanged. They are that strictly tailored to each and every particular aircraft, which will have very different C/G, Reynold Numbers, L/D ratios, etc,.. Nothing is more peculiar, unique, particularly individualistic of any component inside an aircraft than its FBW. The F-16’s FBW will not work with the Lavi’s and neither will the Lavi’s work with the J-10. The L-15 is done in partnership with Yakolev, but the FC-1 is not. As a matter of fact, the J-11B’s FBW—a digital system as a matter of fact—is a new system that shares nothing in common with the Su-27SK’s analog system. The changes in the J-11B would have meant redrafting its flight behavior, and already have required a new FBW system.
As far as legal action is concerned, tough luck. No international court has any jurisdiction with inter country arms trade. Your hope is to file a court case within the courts of that country. Except that both Russia and China do not have reliable legal systems. Countries that are unhappy with their purchases from Russia, e.g. India and Venenzuela, actually have very little legal recourse when dealing with the issues they have with Russian systems, hence why India has begun shifting to the West.
crobatoWhat I would like to know is how they would go about making this lawsuit take place. How are international court cases handled? Who would be the judge and jury in this case, since we’re dealing with different nations here? Off topic, but…
Personally, it sounds like to me that the Russian gov’t are just butt-hurt over losing a major export customer, but what do I know? 😮
There has never been a successful case over reverse engineering and over look or feel even in commercial areas (Intel vs. Zilog, IBM vs. Hitachi, Fujitsu, etc,., Intel vs. AMD, Lotus vs. Microsoft, Apple vs. Microsoft.) Much less in military areas.
Russian government attempt to get royalties from all the AK-47s made around the world is a landmark case of precedence for this type of cases.
You cannot sue a government acting in the interest of national self defense, even if something is copied to the last bolt. Exporting however may not be covered in the direct interest of national self defense.
crobatoAre the Chinese really capable of producing state of the art engins and avionics for this fighters? If the Russia stops it´s assistance to China the later will have some serious problems if they cant manufacutre all types of weapons domestically because I see no country willing to export modern military equipment to China other then Russia.
The engines are the problem, but then China maybe about to cut the umbilical card on this one. Avionics and missiles have already moved into self dependency.
crobatoIn my view, the only fighter plane that China has developed fully indigenously is the JH-7A fighter bomber. All other planes i,e the J-7 (MiG-21), J-8 (MiG-21), J-10 (Lavi) and J-11 (Su-27) are mostly unlicenced or unaccounted copies of foreign planes.
J-8 and J-10 are inspired from concept, that’s different from being a copy. The J-7 and J-11 are actually licensed.
The practice of giving local designations is only to apply legitimacy to it. Only those planes which are either indigenous or which are a “mixture” of foreign planes are given other designations. Hence, the indigenous JH-7A fighter-bomber is a “break” from the tradition of J-X. FC-1 being a mixture of the J-8 II and F-16’s wings is also not given the designation of J-9 (a slot which is empty).
Any different from India giving Russian ships and subs a class “name” on their own? Or Japan calling that F-16ish fighter, the F-2? Or why the USAF decided to call Kfirs in aggressor service, F-21s?
crobatoI love the concept that changing the engines, avionics and paint scheme means that its not a Sukhoi designed airframe anymore.
Well they did license the airframe.
I think Jaguar should catch on to this immediately – they take the body design and chassis of a BMW then install their own engine and dashboard and then slap a Jaguar badge on the front!. Hey presto its a Jaguar!.
Change BMW to Lincoln and you got a story that actually happened. The engine is still Ford’s of course.
crobatoWow…I’m a little rusty on some of the Chinese programmes.
So the H-6K looks to be a complete overhaul of the H6/Badger. I know that it was probably one of the most useful airframes ever designed in the USSR, and was wondering when someone would do a comprehensive redesign/update.
It looks to have a glass cockpit, different, more powerful engines, extra wing hardpoints, and a redesigned nose with large radar radome. Is there anything obvious that I’ve missed? Have they gone for turbofans?
Will it be a cruise missile platform, or anti-ship missile platform?
On the last question, both. PRC air to surface missiles are generally based on a common airframe, then have separate ground and anti ship variants by having versions with different seekers. The H-6H for example, appears to carry both the YJ-63 (anti ship) and its KD-63 land attack twin sibling.
crobatoIf, a fighter sized radar has a hard time tracking and targeting a stealth fighter. How would its BVR Missile with its vastly smaller radar guide to the target then? Also, let say you do get a radar lock on…………..what happens if the the F-22 maneuvers and the signal is lost? Clearly, the F-22 has a much lower RCS from head on………for example!:confused:
One has to remember that radar detection is determined by a number of factors, and among the best known are the size of the receiving array and the strength of the signal. One of the most forgotten but most important factors is also the duration of the signal. Remember what really counts is the radiant energy you receive from the reflected target. A longer exposure means more energy emitted to the target and more energy received back.
Missiles use CWI or Continuous Wave Illumination as opposed to the plane’s radar which uses PRF or pulse repetitive frequency. This means that the target is subjected to a pulse of infinite duration, or a multitude of small pulses of infinite repetition.
I think what is more difficult is finding the target and queing the fire control system to it.
Missiles are getting smarter too. With electronics continue to progress, they can process fainter and fainter returned signals through pulse compression and other techniques.
crobatoThe infrared R-27 is an entirely different niche from the R-73. It was intended for long range BVR engagement but in the rear aspect. Radar is advantageous against head on targets but not targets flying away from you. This has partly to do with doppler, if incoming, the doppler shift compresses the waves but going away, the reverse occur and decompresses the waves. On a tail end, pursuit mode, the radar actually loses range and resolution. On the other hand, from the tail aspect of the plane, the radiant energy from the exhaust are magnitudes greater than any radar reflection.
Thus the use of the SARH and IR R-27 is a one two combination. When the target is incoming, use the SARH. If the target responds by turning away, shoot the IR.
crobatoActually, serial production of the JF-17 has begun, albeit in a low rate. At least 8 examples have been delivered so far. As for the WS-13, it may already be among the first prototypes, given a recent splurge of publicity in CCTV on domestic aircraft engines, many of the clips including the JF-17s.
Sign In
