crobatoBS. The brochure or poster of the PL-9 makes it clear it has a range of 22km. As a matter of fact, the picture of it is posted in the CDF. But oh, you’re banned from the CDF, because the administrators, including a retired colonel of the Canadian Armed Forces and a US Marine, deem you as an insane person.
crobatoThe range of the PL-9C is 22km according to its official brochure. The 5 to 6km mentioned is the SAM version.
crobatotalking BS about Mao’s philosophy versus Gandhi’s wont change the fact that the PLAAF has lost 15-16 Flankers (and using your logic, obviously several hundreds of J-series jets that will never come out in the open thanks to the media gag.
I don’t think China has lost 15 or 16 Flankers, given the count of the regiments that are operational with them. Like I said, until the year 2000, a total of 5 were considered totally lost, 3 by typhoon. Thats from an inception date of 1992. If the rate is followed, you probably only reach about 10 aircraft by now, but then again, some of the alleged Flanker crashes were later debunked. One photo of an alleged Flanker crash, the surface looks more like a J-7’s wing rather than an Su-27’s tail. One of the most debunked cases was the alleged crash of #01 Su-30MK2. It was claimed to crash in March 2004. You can even search this forum for a past thread on this. However this same plane turned out in clear photos this year after an exercise.
So really, unless you have empirical, beyond a doubt evidence, what you claim can be taken with a big shaker of salt.
crobatoThe Python V or even IV are superior to the R-73 and even more to the PL-9 or PL-8.
PL-9C and PL-8B seeker tech is actually quite close to the Python 4, which also uses cryogenically cooled multispectral array. This allows all these missiles better decoy discrimination, something the R-73 needs to improve at. Range of the Python 4 is still around 15km.
Python V uses a different type of seeker technology that works more optical than thermal.
The SD-10 can not compete with the AIM-120C of 105 km of range
And under what circumstances do you get the 105km range? Aircraft launching speed and altitude is important. You can take the same missile, launch it at different altitudes and speeds, and you can come with a major difference in range as far as 60km vs. 100km. Unless you can show the exact launching circumstances, comparisons in range is not valid.
crobatoSD-10 is comparable to the current AMRAAM. PL-8 is not Python 5 but it is a copy of the Python 3 and as such a weapon to respect. Meteor will be a different story, but still, the J-10 is clearly not completely outclassed, is it?
The old PL-8 is a license of the Python 3, but the PL-8B is something else. This is derived from the PL-9C, so the only thing it resembles to the Python is the body. The range is extended from 15km to 22km. It now has a liquid nitrogen cooled seeker with a four element array with each element looking at a different wavelength. It now sets on a gimball with a greater FOV (up to 60 degs boresight, probably similar or copied of the one in the R-73) and will work with a helmet sight.
crobatoThe J-10 is a Lavi derivative and already the Lavi had roll rates of 300deg/s something in the range of the Eurofighter and Rafale, it must have a instantaneous in the range of 30deg/s like the Gripen or slightly more like the Rafale
300 deg/s is also reported in Chinese forums. However, there are also a number of fighters that do this, specifically the Mirage 2000-5 and the F-16. So that has no relation to being with the Lavi at all, but rather, because of being a delta winged single engined plane. The Typhoon and the Rafale only manages up to 250 deg/s in roll rate (twin engines put weight off board the center, increasing lateral stability and roll resistance). Delta winged planes have a tendency for fast roll rates due to huge ailerons.
30 deg/sec in instant turn rate is what you can expect for a plane of this layout (F-16 achieves already up to 28 deg/sec). Again, delta wings are very conducive to high ITR, and you help that with canards.
crobatoRussian media always cry wolf. How many of those issues they mentioned that actually came to past before? Tu-22s to China? Very poor record of fulfillment.
crobatoSorry I don’t know the figures on how many of the Su-27s China still has left and as a result of lack of pilot training. It’s still suspicious how these Western sources get this information when the West always complains that China isn’t transparent. But it seems India has the same problem. I hear and read about their Flankers crashing all the time too. The Indians accuse the Russians of bad quality while the Russians say it’s because of bad Indian pilots.
Actually China still has most of those old Su-27s (they’re actually younger than what the Russians have), looking at the deployment of the regiments that have them, as well as many recent pictures of them. Whatever is lost in those ranks, they have been replaced by J-11s or rebuilt as one. The PLAAF maintains a total of six regiments with up to 32 aircraft per regiment.
crobatoActually it was originally “7E7.” And they did change it to “787” because of the Chinese lucky number “8.”
Actually E also stands for Eight. I think the plane you are referring to chasing the Chinese market is the B747-8.
crobatoI would assume that it is called the 787 simply because it was the next designation Boeing would use, especially considering that the 707,717,727,737,747,757,767, and 777 were already used.
I think it was Airbus, jumping to 380.
And to counter that plane, Boeing also launched the B747-8.
crobatoIf the dollar was really controlled by the central bank of China, the dollar would be stronger. And those US bonds aren’t a trump card, they’re a potential weakness. If a war, they’d be subject to cancellation. If you look up how US Treasury bonds are sold, you’ll find that sovereign holdings, such as those of China, aren’t sold as pieces of paper which you can swap for cash, but as credits to an account held by the US Treasury, in the name of Chinas central bank.
That is if you buy the Treasuries directly from the US Treasury and that is if it is the foreign Central bank actually holding the securities, not through financial institutions acting as fronts or “private” Chinese banks or Asian banks under Chinese ownership. Talk about diversification. A large portion of these are marketable securities, which have short term expirations. And it is not likely that China will wait until war happens to sell off its bonds, it can do it in peacetime, if tensions would rise between the US and China. In fact, China is already trimming its bond holdings and would liquidate them if the US intends to impose trade sanctions.
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/08/08/afx3997945.html.
crobatoVery unlikely Israel still has any influence in the J-10 project, if they ever had any. The Chinese maybe bought Israeli knowledge, maybe employed Israel consultant. Maybe there is a gentlemen’s agreement.
The only thing I could think of is that China still pays for Israeli expertise on avionics. And this connection would be lost if they sell aircraft to Iran.But China is no penny arms dealer like North Korea. They pick their allies with care, and doing something that clearly opposes the USA would only be thinkable if it offers very decisive advantages for the Chinese that matches the risks. Although the Iran is an important supplier for Chinese energy, the USA is the biggest market for its products, not only toys, but also technology products. If China cooperates with Iran in aviation, it must fear a boycott of aviation products from USA. And that would be devastating for Chinese aviation industry.
And why should they sell their best home-grown fighter? They don’t need the money desperately.
So a very big no-no.
EXACTLY.
crobatoRussia invasion of Afghanistan is the biggest Geopolitical victory afte WWII. It prevented spread of radical islam into Soviet republics . It was a premptive war that they decisively won. Now West has to deal with this Monster.
Tell that to Al Qaeda in Chechnya. Or to the Chechnyan members of Al Qaeda.
and Iran would be stupid to waste money on J-10 kind a fighter. what they need is Su-35 or Su-34 class fighter. Both have AWACS class radar with long range. Armed them with Airlunched Club or Brahmos type weopon and than u have virtually every target in middleast without airrefuelling. the most damage to oil fields and pipelines.
Previous to this, there was rumor that Iran wanted to buy Su-30MK. It now seems to be as vaporous and irresponsible a rumor as the J-10 buy.
crobatoThat’s old Taiwan news recycled stuff. Of course they want to make themselves feel better after crashing a couple of their own Mirage 2000s and F-16s. Lots of false reports, including one that claims being accidentally shot down by an S-300.
Jane’s cited about five lost by the year 2000, three of whom after being left in the open in the face of a typhoon in 1997. There may be planes that are damaged by accidents but were not totaled. I am only sure that one plane was lost around 1994.
crobatoThe F-15E supports your earlier statement that you can get the performance of VG by using powerful modern engines. The F-15E lifts a big load, and its low level dash speed is equal to an F-111. The big wing of the F-15E makes it a better dogfighter, which is a nice to have defensive capability, but that is not the role of the F-15E. The down side to the big wing is the rough ride the crew gets at low level. Lately, the USAF has been making strike missions at medium altitude, so that’s not an issue. But you would agree that a strike aircraft could have better field performance with a swing wing. If the strike mission was for low altitude, I would favor a VG jet. The ride would be smoother, and even if the there is enough thrust for high speed at low level with a fixed wing, with a VG wing you could acheive the same speed at a lower power setting, and thus sustain that speed for a longer time. As usual, the best design depends on what tactics you intend to use.
Very true. But you can get a smooth low level ride with a fixed wing too. All it takes is a plane with high wing loading. You get that with the Jaguar, and you can get that with the F-16C. Hence you see the reason why F-16Cs are used for strike.
Going back to other jets, you will see other high wing loading jets being used for strike, like the F-104 Starfighter, although the plane’s purpose was not originally for it.
The disadvantage of a fixed high loaded wing is that the plane also needs longer distances for take offs and landings. And the plane is a hard to handle at low speeds, compared to the VG wing plane with the wings going upright for better low speed handling, response and shorter landing distances. Overall, the VG plane can feel “safer”.
Sign In
