crobatoI know these things. From the same firm every calculation is based on same criteria. when Knaapo put 38.8tons for Su-30MK2, 34.5 ton for Su-35 and 33 tons for Su-27SKM. it means the same values.
and prove it later MIG-29s are heavier than the old ones?
Wrong. You don’t know anything. There is no such thing as you mention. While the MTOW differs, the weight of all three planes are practically the same, save for a few hundred kilograms here and there. Yet the MTOW figures are changing via tons.
thats ur assumption that every twin engine fighter is more complex than single engine. Whats next? A four engine World War2 bomber is more complex than twin engine Backfire.
You really are an idiot. Of course, every twin engine fighter is more complex than a single engined plane. Complexity can be quantitatively measured through the number of parts. Having twin engines means double of everything that supports the engine, and not just the engines themselves. There is also the additional engine supporting structure, and you need beefier of everything like the landing gear to support the weight. A J-6 is nearly a ton heavier than a MiG-21F13 empty. And you certainly have no idea that when you have two engines or more, there is a new problem.
SYNCHRONIZATION
provide some data. Considering the fleet size and age and flight hrs taking into consideration. i told u already most of the crashes are in 90s. when supply of spares dried up.
You are the one who needs to provide data. Like I said, the standard F-7s were all exported in the eighties. China did not export standard F-7s in the nineties because all the J-7s and F-7s then had a double delta wing configuration.
Look at the A-5s still in Pakistani service. How long has that been?
I am referring to overall IAF fleet. It dates back to 1960s. Bison is statiscally small part of the fleet. Most of PAF F-7s are 90s batch. so even if u compare Bision crashes with F-7. F-7 are more notwithstanding that Bison fleet is older by a decade and used substandard parts.
BS. Only the double delta wing F-7s were 90s batch. Every standard wing J-7 were build in the eighties and China stopped building them at the turn of the decade. As a matter of fact, China stopped building the F-7s to make room before 1988/89 for the J-7C/D which is based on the MiG-21MF. In 1991 they were making J-7Es already.
The IAF fleet currently flies mostly MiG-21Bis, and this is where the crashy ones occur. All the earlier types have long been retired. The -bis has a tempermental engine and a high wing loading.
how is that good. considering the number of crashes of F-7s out of fleet of 150 and that is in the 90s. and now compare the crashes of IAF MIG-21s in first 15 years of service from 1962 to 1977.
u cannot play games with words. U are simply incapable of making MIG-21s of same quality even in 90s what Soviet built in 60s.
Yeah, right. And how many of these PAF crashes are due to aircraft fatigue, huh? Let me point out to you that world wide, the MiG-21F/PF/MF are not exactly the safest aircraft either looking at the Middle East experience.
What is funny is that compared to an armchair red neck like you, at least Pepe Rezende, who I believe to be an actual military officer in Brazil, got to visit China and the Chengdu factory, and got to face the data first hand. So it annoys you that his real life data experience does not match your Russian nationalism gibberish.
crobatoNothing special. You will find in Israeli F-16s home made radar, AAMs, Avionics, weaponary, structural work, stronger landing-gear, higher MTOW, GE or PW engines a.s.o.. Through the Lavi Israel got the expertise to built all parts related to that, when cost is no issue, but is to avoid misunderstandings. Despite all that the fuselage and related flight-system and several other key elements are still LM.
Wrong. Israeli F-16s do not have home made radar. In fact, they were deliberately disavowed for that by LM, which went on and fitted APG-68s on the latest F-16Is. The Israelis were not thrilled about this.
Israeli F-16Is can have Pythons installed, by integrating IR AAMs are small potatoes compared to radar guided BVRAAMs. No Israeli F-16 uses Derby.
And no Israeli F-16s or any F-16 whatsover around the world that does not fly a US made engine.
And while F-16s around the world are nationally modified, none of them includes such a thorough overhaul of the airframe that it reduces weight and extends the airframe life by a multiplicative factor. LM still handles the airframe overhauls.
Pointing to F-16s is nonsense because a lot of what is integrated or co developed formed from politics. (Japanese F-2) You cannot apply US policies with its allies to that of Russia. Find me a Russian precedent.
When the J-10 is indigenous in general, the J-11 is not so similar way, like the MKIs built in India, whatever is fitted, when the Tejas will be indeginous in general.
23rd June 2007 03:12
The MKI is fitted with a Russian radar, engine and missiles. The J-11B is not. Find me a precedent in any Russian armstrade history that is similar to this. Oh yes, some people tried to modify and upgrade the MiG-21 by fitting Israeli radar and use Israeli missiles and MiG publicly disavowed such efforts.
crobatoThe press release is not outdated, it was published on 8 June 2007, the only excuse you find is say Sukhoi does not know, Sukhoi very explicitly includes the Chinese and Indian license built ones, read the report, at no moment they say China has opened an unlicense line.
С 1996 года по 2006 год общее количество самолетов Су-27 поставленных заказчикам, учитывая лицензионное производство 380 единиц выполнены межгосударственные контракты в области ВТС С китаем и Индией
basicly they say Sukhoi built 380 aircraft including the export licensed ones, including the license built in China and India achieved throughout intergovernamental agreements;)
[/quote]
Which does not say anything about the J-11B, or try to concern about it.
Now tell me where the f*ck the license tells you to modify the aircraft where
You can put your own RADAR into it, and use your indigenous missles.
crobatoYeah, sure :p that’s a future (typical russian thing) upgrade marketed as ready to sell :diablo: Right now the OLS of the prototype MiG 35 can do this :
But don’t let me ruin your day; if you want to believe that Russians are able taday to manufacture optoelectronics comaparable with what US did in 1990 (when f 14D), be my guest :diablo: 😀 :diablo: 😀 :diablo: …PS: I think you realize that the figures for the AAS 42 are for head-on (“cold” tagets)…
Range also has a lot to do with the size of the receiving array. The ones on the MiG-35 is actually quite small compared to the OLS on the Su-30. the OLS-31E used on the MKK, also used on the MKI, had a claimed range of 100km. The OLS-27 used on the Su-27SK has a claimed range of 50km.
crobatoThe Chinese have their own ejection seats now, and thus have no need for US sourced components.
Its the F-7P that had a Martin Baker seat, and an imported HUD. The F-7PG which has the double delta wing, uses a Chinese seat and HUD. The Chinese were making their own HUDs by the early nineties.
crobato
You have a Flanker here that has a non Russian radar firing non Russian missiles. The picture is published in the back of a Chinese military journal. Now tell me what does Sukhoi have to say about it.
crobatoCrobato
Why you do not relax and you stop your tantrum? be open, i am open to a possibility china can build unlicense J-11s, however what i have read in Russian sources do not say that, on the Sukhoi`s press release reported by TASS of 9 June 2007, they do not mention there is a separate Chinse production line, they say all the Flankers built are licensed ones, or built directly by Sukhoi for export customers or the Russian air force.
The typical tantrum that you get, won`t change that, i am open to a possible unlicense line of J-11s however i search in Russain news out lets an i do not find any thing confirming it.
in fact if you do not believe tass here is the original press release by Sukhoi enjoy it:diablo: http://www.sukhoi.org/files/go_ahk_2006.pdf
BS.
The problem with you and which makes everyone mad is that you abuse data by quoting information that has no relationship with the topic at hand.
Anything 2006 would be considered outdated information.
Of course I do not have to believe their crap. Because words are easy to lie about.
Fact remains there are J-11Bs flying out there. Are they licensed or not? China believes they are being built as per license conditions. is there a 200 plane limit? No. In fact, Shenyang appears planning a carrier variant and now appears to have finished testing of a dual seater prototype.
Evidence overrules.
crobatoI am well aware about the shortcomings and limited views, when it comes to his sources. Even in that severe limitation he is usefull in some way.
When it comes to China, I have a more distant view. I see the Chinese intrest to built mayor weapon-systems from the own industrial base to keep some independence from imports. To name that indigenous has no practical value except some national pride to have achived that. If a J-11B will have carbon brakes it does not make a superior system, but it will ease related problems.
The Chinese intentions of completely building indigenous systems go back to their own recent history where China is either embargoed, isolated (by the West) and when allies do not prove to be trustworthy (the Soviet Union).
Hence it is strategic for them that they must build these weapons themselves.
Going completely indigenous has no tactical value. Some of the Russian components may be better than the Chinese, and in paper, something like the Su-35 still seems superior. Going to the WS-10A actually adds logistical strain because it means a new engine to support, when the PLAAF only had to support two lines for their fighters (AL-31F for the J-11s and J-10s, and WP-13 for their J-8IIs and J-7s).
But the Chinese do it for geo-strategic reasons, and in the long run, they don’t think the Russians can be trusted, especially now with the Russians going right wing and want to resurrect the glories of the old Soviet Union.
As long as Chinese first rate fighters are fitted with Russian TF-engines, the claim indigenous has a question mark left. India faces a similiar problem, whatever is claimed about the MKI f.e.
Maybe you didn’t read what I said. There is a huge difference between the MKI and the J-11B. The MKI still has a Russian radar, a Russian engine and fires Russian weapons. The J-11B does not in all three areas.
In the early 90s (1994) Russia showed something like the MiG 1.42/1.44, when a decade later the J-11B/J-10 are the present pinacle in China.
The Chinese race into the “top ten” is thrilling for all intrested in aviation.
The MiG 1.44 is a show aircraft, and being a technology demonstrator does not prove anything. The 99.9% of sweat that goes into an aircraft comes wit h the details and tedious work to make it truly real world acceptable and usable. Note how quickly LM can make the YF-22 and YF-35 tech demonstrators. Note how long it takes the two to become truly operationally certifiable aircraft. You can take the J-10 right now and fight a war with it. You cannot say the same with the MiG 1.44. You can take the J-11B right now and fight a war with it. You cannot say the same with whatever variant of the Su-35 you have now.
As far as EW and defensive systems goes, I think the J-11B is in good hands. If the RWR is anything like they have on the J-10 and JF-17—able to diagnose as much as over 500 radar signatures and working with an optical UV MAWS that can control the chaff and EW systems,
crobatoA single application engine is always heavior, because it can not share associated applications to have some redundancy. Weight and lifetime are in a relationship.
So the published data are of questionable value, when not quoted to a related lot and what is fitted to that. We can assume, that the nacked values are published most of the time to give a rough impression.
To repeat my point, when a single-engine example of the same engine is quoted to be lighter there is something twisted or different production variants are quoted.
An AL-31F built in the 80s was ~1530 kg, when a AL-31F built in 2007 is no longer so.
Published engine weights do not count the main transmission which is shared among dual engined planes. It is simply engine itself plus accessories and accessory gearbox, which every engine must have and is not shared.
The AL-31FN is lighter than your AL-31F due to the requirements of fitting it into the J-10.
crobatoCrobato
The question is not the Russian media, first it is Sukhoi, Rosoboronexport or ROSPROM which are not media but official organizations, in fact ROSPROM, ROSOBOREXPORT and Sukhoi do not claim China has built more than 105 kits, TASS or INTERFAX usually take their reports from Sukhoi, ROSPROM or Rosoboronexport
Chinese aircraft that are not made by Sukhoi is non of ROSS and Sukhoi’s business. Does ROSS claim to know how many J-10s and J-7s are built huh?
These are Russian government agencies or the Sukhoi company it self and at no moment Sukhoi says on 9 June 2007 that China has built unlicense Flankers or even excluding the Chinese production line. to the contrary they are saying all the Flankers delivered have been delivered by Sukhoi and those include license built, export or for the Russian air force, Sukhoi even says from 1996 to 2006 the Flanker family production has exceeded the 380 aircraft delivered and they included in that the ones built for the Russian air force, the license built in China and India and the exported directly by Sukhoi.
😉
That’s perhaps because the J-11Bs are within the license and there is no limit to the basic license. Actual total of license > Contract number of kits.
I don’t care what the f@ck agencies say, which is always bent for political and marketing purposes.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
The fact that there is a number of J-11Bs and non kit J-11s out there means crap what they say. Evidence overrides your agency windbags. The Chinese are now building a fifth batch of Flankers that is beyond the four batches which are covered by the kits.
In fact Boris Aleshin is the director of ROSPROM.
Maybe you should reread his words. “Wanted” means they, the Russians are NOT part of the J-11B program but only expressing desire for participation.
crobatohow is they not lighter. Just simply calculate from MTOW and External weopon load. they are lighter than original models.
BS. Only an idiot thinks he can get empty weight by calculating off external weapons load and MTOW. You failed to notice that a plane can take off with its MTOW with less than maximum internal fuel load.
There is no doubt that later versions of the MiG-29 is heavier due to needed structural reinforcement.
Soviet Union is not China that they have to fly MIG-19 for 40 years.they can produce and maitain much more complex aircraft decades ago.
It does not change the fact that a J-6 is more complex than your average MiG-21.
are they all of Bision models? Even Bision is 20 year old airframe.
Mostly the crashes are. -Bis pretty much started in the eighties.
If export J-7 are not overhauled so what is these numbers.
all F-7s are overhualed or Rebuilt in span of 15 years at most. and when u count 30 to 40 crashes. this record is even worse than IAF MIG-21 which are much older by several decades and total number appraches 600 to 700 aircraft. and Most of them are Indian built and according to MIG used substandard parts in 90s that was also the cause of crash.
BS. How is the Bison older by “several decades”. What a liar you are. The F-7s go back to the early eighties.
Overhaul periods of 15 years or so for any aircraft is pretty good, amazing for a MiG-21 airframe really, which typically lasts far less than this.
crobatoIt is interesting to note that the Hornet is being criticized as being slow and low when in fact, these qualities designed into the Hornet (and the SH) came to be as a result of combat experience in Vietnam and the Middle East.
Where it turned out that playing it slow and low is what where modern air combat still turns out to be. Prior to that, we were all thinking that higher and faster is where we want to be. That is until MiG-17s were shooting down F-4 Phantoms in contradiction to conventional wisdom.
The thing is, if the Hornets and the SH are becoming the modern day Zero fighters, someone will end up playing the Zero’s nemesis, where tactics using surprise and dash ate the fighter up.
The Rafale looks like its every bit as maneuverable as the Hornet and SH. It has a tremendous instantaneous turn rate, backed up a sustained turn rate that looks like the equal to better of the F-16’s. Yet it is also speedy, and can dash. When it comes to a complete performance package, the Rafale seems to have it more complete, since it has both speed and maneuverbility.
crobatoIt has cleary to do with avionics. u need airframe strengtheing of several tons to carry extra weight of avionics. why u think Su-27SM and MIG-29SMT empty weights are the same or lighter than the original models.
Nonsense. Why? Modern avionics tend to be lighter due to electronics miniturization. Modern avionics are not heavy at all, why, have you seen technicians carry boxed components of these by HAND?
Su-27SM and MiG-29SMT empty weights are not lighter than the original models. They are either the same or heavier. Whatever weight savings are made in one area, it is compensated on another area that is beefed up for greater strengthening for longer airframe life and higher payload.
J-5/J-6 are very simple aircraft compared to even MIG-21. u can overhaul it much quicker and since they were made in much greater number. it does not effect operational hours. It is not like all of them are flying at same time.
BS. The J-6 is actually more complicated and heavier than the MiG-21 due to its dual engines. One of the reasons of its phase out in the Soviet Union was its complexity.
hardly two or three in past five or six years. which is much better record than export F-7 which are also overhualed.
Oh really? In India, prior to 2005, the number of MiG-21 crashes seem almost monthly and its almost concerns one type. In the last two years they have greatly cleaned this up. And that’s one country.
And which export J-7 are overhauled? Let me know. Which, when or where, or you just pulled this out of your ass as always.
crobatoI am only referring to MTOW. why it is so much lower than Su-30? and range and speed is also greater.
Why? It has nothing to do with the avionics. The Su-30 has a much more strengthened landing gear to begin with. Even if your airframe has the theoritical strength to handle greater loads, maybe your hardpoints are not individually stressed for this.
J-5/J-6 are cheap stuff of communist era. U dont know the flight hrs and entry date of each aircraft. unless u know how many were supplied on which date, how many hrs were put and when each batch was retired.
J-5s were never built since the sixties, since the J-6s took over. J-6s were built till the eighties but the ones Pakistan had were all built in the sixties. At the low point, pilots in the PLAAF during the Communist era range from 60 to 120 hours. However, since planes are not allocated per pilot and allocated through a communal pool, they are using them well over that number. The trainers see even tougher continous service, since the planes are communally shared and can easily be running well over 200 hours a year. There were J-5s (MiG-17 based dual seat trainers) in one of the pictures of a Chengdu airfield that has a J-10 on it.
u cannot make assumptions. that they stayed for 30 years and there hardly majore improvement. MIG-21BISON is vast improvement over 1980s when they were originally built and they will continue to serve untill 2020. Almost 40 years of service with enhanced capablility like R-77. and IAF have alot more flight hrs.
Lol and how many -bis has crashed then? BISON includes airframe overhaul and rebuilt.
crobatoSorry, had jet lag in my brain. 29th is Nanjing MR.
30168 would have been the 25th Division, which in reality is now a bomber division. I am not sure how the numbers came to be, but all the J-7C/Ds are now dumped with the 29th Division and should have numbers 4xx0x now.
Sign In
