dark light

PLA-MKII

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 1,462 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: FC-1 Prototype 04: the Saga Continues #2526999
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Here is an interesting article I found on a blog. Its by our very own SOC.

    The FC-1 seems to be a lousy piece of cr@p thats going to get blown out by the mighty Yum-Kay-Eye 😀

    The article ends with a feisty account of how the evil pakistanis are not rounding up the taliban and how they should be isolated, wonder how the hundreds of pakistani soldiers dead from fighting there are going to feel about that 😮

    Personally, I’d like nothing better than Pakistan breaking out of the US feifdom and following its own foreign policy, sell nukes to Iran and build a NATO like organization with China.

    China, Pakistan, and the FC-1

    A few weeks or so ago, China delivered the first two FC-1 fighter jets to Pakistan. The FC-1, also known as the JF-17 to Pakistan, is a Chinese designed single-seat fighter jet. It’s powered by a Russian-made engine and equipped with Chinese avionics and weapons (although the prospects of Pakistan incorporating Western kit isn’t out of the question).

    Now, the idea of Pakistan receiving a modern, lightweight fighter jet would seem to be ideal, as their air force is severely lacking in terms of quality equipment. Their current air arm relies mainly on comparitively ancient aircraft like the Mirage III, A-5 (a Chinese variation of Russia’s MiG-19), and F-7 (a Chinese variation of Russia’s MiG-21). Sure, they’ve tried to keep up appearances by continuing to operate a small fleet of early-block F-16As and upgrading their other aircraft with newer systems, but truth be told, the PAF has some serious shortfalls to address. Pakistan even lacks any sort of BVR AAM, internet propagandist spoutings to the contrary. So reequipping with a modern fighter would seem to be a logical step, given that Pakistan’s main rival India has an air force festooned with modern high-performance aircraft (the Mirage 2000, MiG-29, and Su-30MKI, to name a few).

    That all being said, the FC-1 is clearly viewed as an inferior product by Pakistan. If the FC-1 was a top-tier fighter jet, then why in the world would Pakistan be consistently pushing for the acquisition of more F-16s from the United States? FC-1 fanboys will allege that Pakistan wants to replace the old Mirages, A-5s, and J-1s with a mix of both FC-1s and F-16s. Okay, sure. Then why is Pakistan also trying to acquire China’s other new fighter, the J-10? Do they want a three-jet fleet? Or is the J-10 intended to backstop a potential failure in the F-16 acquisition plans? Something is clearly amiss here. If the FC-1 was the superfighter that some Pakistani aviation fans would want you to believe, then why aren’t they clamoring for more FC-1s in place of those F-16s? Or is Pakistan’s infatuation with the F-16 just so intense that not even the vaunted FC-1 can break it down? But enough of that, let’s examine some of the FC-1’s current problems.

    1-it has a limited weapons load, and to tote a large payload it needs to waste hardpoints with fuel tanks. This is somewhat curtailed by the fact that the FC-1 would not have to go very far to find its targets in or over India, however.

    2-the FC-1’s flying ability is at the mercy of Russia at the moment, given that Russian engines are used to power the aircraft (as of right now Russia is apparently turing a blind eye to China’s re-export of said engines, but that could always change).

    Then there’s the issue of the FC-1’s true effectiveness in combat on the subcontinent. Pakistan wants about 150 of them. Unfortunately for them, India is buying and license building a similar number of a true 4.5 Generation fighter jet, the Su-30MKI. TVC, a PESA, and a robust long-range weapons fit for both A/A and A/G combat make the Su-30MKI a world-class fighter jet, and pretty much hands air superiority over the subcontinent to the Indian Air Force, easily. Sure, people will argue that “the FC-1 is smaller so it’ll be able to get really close before the Indian pilots see it”. Wow. Ignorance reigns. As if it worked that way. By that logic, the B-2 should be really non-stealthy as it is rather expansive. Oh wait, it’s not, claims by bitter anti-American internet ranters like Venik (who, amusingly enough, apparently lives in Philadelphia…) about Serbian B-2 shootdowns over the FRY notwithstanding. Read up on RCS, aspect angles, and PESA before assuming that just because Pakistan bought it it has to be just fabulous and the best of the best, geniuses. Lots of corner reflectors, external weapons carriage, and other features of the airframe make the FC-1 a pretty decent radar target. For that matter, they make the Su-30MKI a decent target as well, and then it comes down to avionics fit and weapons load, as well as pilot ability.

    Let’s put the whole force into perspective. You’ve got FC-1s and F-16s on one side, with Su-30MKIs, MiG-29s, MiG-21BISONs, and Mirage-2000s on the other. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that it’s not the numerical advantage that gives India the edge here. Inserting the FC-1 into this environment is foolhardy; the J-10 would be a far better option, being more capable of dealing effectively with other truly modern fighters. The J-10 is part of that peer group, while the FC-1 is the cheap alternative. So, if Pakistan wanted to make strides towards being able to actually combat the Indian Air Force, they need something better than the FC-1 and something more politically reliable than the F-16. That would be the J-10. They won’t be able to match the IAF on a 1 for 1 basis, but they’ll be far more capable than an FC-1 force would be. Of course, they could always plan on sticking to the nuclear deterrent option, in which case they could justify the cheaper FC-1 as merely attrition and life-cycle replacements for their older legacy aircraft. This of course is contingent on Pakistan’s actual firing off of a nuclear weapon in the event of a conflict, otherwise they’d pretty much have had it. Not that they wouldn’t go down if they did start lobbing nuclear weapons around, falling themselves under the Indian counterstrike, but at least in that case they’d take India down with them. That all depends on the fortitude of the leadership in Pakistan, I guess. They had no problem taking over the nation and harboring Al Qaeda and the Taliban after ENDURING FREEDOM though, so I would think they’d have no issues with unleashing a nuclear exchange.

    Now, in reality, both India and Pakistan need to learn a thing or two about actual air defense. Neither one of them has a real air defense network. India has a small edge by having numerous S-125 SAM sites around major airbases, compared to Pakistan’s solitary HQ-2 site in Islamabad. An actual air defense network with a few modern, long-range SAMs like the S-300PM-1 or HQ-9 would make a lot of difference and help even things out a bit, since Indian air combat aircraft would have a new issue to contend with beyond how many FC-1s they can shoot down at range.

    Personally, I think China should just back off of the FC-1 project. Granted, the cheap FC-1 represents a potential export success as a J-7/MiG-21 replacement across the globe. But there are better options. For a little more cash, a nation could have China’s real fighter jet, the J-10. Dropping the FC-1 would enable Chengdu, the FC-1 and J-10 manufacturer, to concentrate more on improving and perfecting the J-10. A mixed force of J-10s and various FLANKER iterations would be a very effective combat force to replace the older Q-5s, J-7s, and J-8s. The FC-1 just doesn’t have a place in the PLAAF except as a token political buy to give faith to Pakistan and other export customers. If the PLAAF truly desires a short-range fighter for point defense, to replace the J-7, then the Hongdu L-15 supersonic trainer provides a far more logical basis. For one, it keeps another type out of your inventory, cleaning up your logistics. Also, it provides an export product to take the FC-1s export niche if foreign nations cannot afford the J-10.

    Remember, the FC-1 is the final iteration of a US-Chinese project in the 1980’s that would have modified and updated the J-7 design to feature a large nose radar and side-mounted intakes. Tianamen Square ended that partnership, and China turned to Russia for a time for advanced fighter jets, buying Su-27SK and Su-30MKK/MK2 aircraft. At some point the Chengdu team began work on the new design, possibly with help from Mikoyan, and the FC-1 was born. However, it still represents a sub-par fighter jet, clearly targeted for less propserous buyers who can’t afford top-tier kit like the J-10. It might end up with a great avionics fit, and decent Chinese weapons, but the aircraft is still not on par with the rest of the world’s latest fighter aircraft. Especially the J-10 and the Su-30MKI.

    So, China should give up the ghost and drop the FC-1. Yes, they view Pakistan as an ally against India. But there are other products much more suited for Pakistan, like the HQ-9 long-range SAM and the J-10 fighter jet. But that’s alright, Pakistan wanted to go for the inferior product, and that’s their prerogative. Maybe they just don’t have the revenue to make a large enough J-10 buy, what with their lack of recent exports of nuclear technology and their love affair with the F-16.

    And really, why we want to sell F-16s to a nation that is clearly neither democratic nor an actual ally (have they rounded up the Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Waziristan? No? Sheesh…) is beyond me. We picked the wrong ally in that fight. Better to cut ties with Pakistan and move on to a better relationship with both India and China. Perhaps increased diplomatic and economic ties with both nations could lead to a mending of fences, helping to further isolate and marginalize Pakistan.

    Until they start selling nuclear technology again, of course.

    http://temperedinsanity.blogspot.com/search/label/FC-1

    in reply to: F22 and one method of exiting cockpit #2527010
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    thanks, I actually didn’t see that last time.

    in reply to: Water Cooled Aircraft Engines #2527970
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Are we talking in a modern scenario? or a flashback??

    I am talking about a modern scenario, a ground attack aircraft that can be produced in large numbers.

    Several problems arise…

    As far as i know no one makes any 1500HP piston engines… liquid cooled or otherwise.

    I am thinking of mass producing 20,000 – 30,000 of them to introduce democracy to south and south east asia. 🙂
    Also, I want to use the same engine to build a twin engined utility transport. And maybe a 4 engined heavier transport.

    A company called Orenda made several V twins, but to be honest i dont know if they still make them anymore… and i only knew of an 800HP version as their biggest engine….

    The question for me is, how much worse would it be in terms of efficiency vis-a-vis a turbo prop? and how much better (or is it better) would it be in terms of IR signature? I was thinking a liquid cooled old world war II style engine would have lower IR signatures..

    Next…. the pysical size and weight of a 1500HP engine would destroy any weapon carrying capability… why waste 600kg in weight, when for the same power from a PT-6 turbine you can save 450KG and carry more payload??

    Thanks, this is one aspect that I really wanted expert advice on. Would it really be worth it? I guess you think its not.

    Next…. AVGAS is shortly to be discontinued …. so it would need to be a diesel engine……. This again leads to the problem that no one makes any 1500HP diesel are engines….

    The thing is, for this aircraft, it has got to use diesel or normal gas at worse because I want total commonality in terms of logistics with my armor. These aircraft will be deployed organically with armor, this aspect is crucial. Also, since the weather in my part of the world is very warm, and my aircraft will primarily be flying low, freezing shouldn’t be an issue.

    Couple this to the fact that most military aircraft mechanics would look at a piston engine and scratch their heads as none of them would have probably ever worked on one….

    My country only has a rudimentary air force. I’d have to train everyone and build everything anyways.

    In order to design and certify it would run into the millions…..

    I’ll earn back the money when I introduce democracy in the neighborhood and make money on the natural resources whose lopsided contracts I am going to dish out (or some puppet government I set up is).

    As for IR signature…… A cast iron piston engine with glowing hot red exhaust stacks beats the IR signature of any given turbine….

    Ah well, then I’m wrong with the idea that a liquid cooled engine would be better for IR. Back to the Turbo prop 🙂


    A turbine also offers smoother characteristics over any piston engine. Avionics and weapon aiming would all suffer very heavly from the vibrations of a piston engine aircraft….. not to mention pilot comfort.

    These are points I overlooked. thanks.

    in reply to: Chinese News, Photos, and Speculation #10 #2531035
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    those are great images hyperwarp. That white I’d assume satellite comm link seems rather aerodynamically inefficiently installed. Probably an afterthought.

    in reply to: Fighting Skills Progression with non-wva wvr only #2532271
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    will the game be 3D or 2D?

    in reply to: Water Cooled Aircraft Engines #2532979
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    I’d go for an air-cooled radial, if you insist on a piston engine. Cooler sound, better looking, no shot-up radiator leading to an overheated engine…

    Actually, I must concede, the more I think about that point, the more right you sound. I’d love to do a study on the tradeoff between them for this scenario though.

    in reply to: Water Cooled Aircraft Engines #2533155
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    I’d go for an air-cooled radial, if you insist on a piston engine. Cooler sound, better looking, no shot-up radiator leading to an overheated engine…

    Or, as Pesho has pointed out, you could put the radiators in the wings like the IL-2..

    in reply to: Water Cooled Aircraft Engines #2533330
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    What capability would an aircraft with this sort of engine fullfill that a Jaguar, Su-25 or, A-10 could not perform? The vulnerability of all the CAS aircraft to systems to systems like the ZSU-23, is emmense. CAS aircraft must get through the threat envelope as quickly as possible. As an aircraft with a low powered engine (relatively), and can not be protected by any armor.

    Today’s IR systems are actually infra-red imaging, where the heat or infra-red image is detected of the entire aircraft.

    Adrian

    Hi Adrian, About your last point:

    I am wondering why ground attack aircraft today then want to lower their IR signatures from their exhausts.. Even the bad a$$ appache does this. For instance:

    To hide itself form heat-seeking missiles it reduces its infrared signature. The Black Hold infrared suppression system dissipates the heat of the engine exhaust by missing it with air flowing around the helicopter. The cooled exhaust then passes through a special filter, which absorbs more heat.

    http://www.aviationexplorer.com/apache_facts.htm

    and this is just one example, there are loads and loads of others.

    About your first point, I personally believe that true ground attack close air support aircraft don’t have to travel at the speed of say, a Jaguar, but more at the speed of an attack helicopter. Otherwise the terrain just becomes a blur and you have very little situational awareness. This has been proved time and time again, particularly in Vietnam. As a result, we don’t need a jaguar or a lumbering A-10, we need something more maneuverable and cheaper but not necessarily fast. Something with a lot of armor. A modern IL-2 if you will. Something that can be mass produced in the thousands, in large swarms that simply wipe out everything in its path 😀

    Well, my idea is actually more complex than that, but the primary assumption is that of a third world power rather than the labor scarce (and casualty shy) first world.

    Here is a thread I started some time back. My ideas have evolved further since then but its a good start to see where I am coming from.

    http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66139&highlight=idea+CAS

    in reply to: India's New Small Fighter Bet #2534526
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    PLA-MKII’s Bet:

    MiG-35

    in reply to: What will be a classic in the future? #2534655
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Flanker
    F-14
    F-16
    MiG-29
    Su-25
    Mirage-2000
    MiG-31

    F-22
    FC-1
    J-10
    Eurofighter

    in reply to: Water Cooled Aircraft Engines #2534674
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Several piston engine powered Predators have been shot down by IR-guided MANPADS.

    There are in fact, different kinds of piston engines. I’m proposing a water cooled one. Of course, they not really “water” cooled but err.. hmmm.. perhaps I should say “fluid” cooled. 😀

    All the comments seem to be a “nay”, any “yea” sayers?

    Any technical papers anyone has? Links, information, anything on such aviation engines today?

    in reply to: Has VG wings gone out of style? #2534912
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    Not if I ever have the last word in it. I actually see future designs being delta canards with the front canards being VG. But thats just me 🙂

    in reply to: Water Cooled Aircraft Engines #2534947
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    I think its all a question of parameters. Wartime scenarios, narrow opportunities. decision making and shooting SAMs in mere fraction of a second. If the case that reducing engine IR signature was no use, we’d not see techniques to do just that on attack helos and ground attack aircraft..

    PLA-MKII

    in reply to: Libya making big ticket weapons purchases #2535307
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    wow do we have a consensus across the board on this forum for the first time? Make it all Flankers 😉

    in reply to: MiG-17 manuevirity.. #2535310
    PLA-MKII
    Participant

    from lycos

Viewing 15 posts - 1,021 through 1,035 (of 1,462 total)