In particular, the patent spells out the benefits of internal weapons carriage, s-shaped engine air ducts, (which were considered but are actually not implemented in the production PAK FA), and the use of radar blockers.
The four US crewmen who died in a helicopter crash in Cley-next-the-Sea, north Norfolk, have been named.
The US Air Force said the crew of the helicopter were Captain Christopher S. Stover, Captain Sean M. Ruane, Technical Sergeant Dale E. Mathews and Staff Sergeant Afton M. Ponce.
The HH-60G Pave Hawk from the 48th Fighter Wing was based RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk and came down on Tuesday.
It was on a low-level night training mission and carrying live ammunition.
RIP
RIP, thoughts and condolences to the families. We’ve been experiencing some extreme weather over the past couple of months with strong winds and storms, just wondering if the challenging weather conditions had a strong part to play?
French avionics in a Chinese/Pak airframe (don’t!)…
Actually, that isn’t too far off what was originally considered for the FC-1/JF-17 during early development. Updated with current French avionics and weapons, could be a compelling package?
The Gripen would be a wonderful choice for Argentina, but it has too many British (or British related and highly sensitive) systems installed, there are also many more American systems which would have an impact on Argentina’s choice. As you stated yourself a moment ago, UK-US alliance being more important these days…
Yep, you beat me to it, my sentiments exactly. The Gripen would be a great choice if it weren’t for BAE’s input and potential for sanctions/restrictions from the UK and/or US. But that leaves very little choice for the Argentinians, if they want new Western gear, that only leaves the Rafale, which may be too expensive. If they’re happy with upgraded used gear, they could go for ex-French or maybe ex-Gulf M2Ks (UAE or Qatar). The Russian option for Mig-29Ks may not appeal to them considering they haven’t really used Soviet/Russian equipment before to any great extent. However, it’s clear the Argentinians are considering something more long-term in terms of tech transfer and local production based on the FC-1/JF-17, according to previous news;
😀
What a load of BS!
😀
so the Tejas’ combat range is 300-500 km, with the added suggestion that this may be in clean config whereas the wonder machine JF-17’s is >700 km with external payload all while the Tejas carries more internal fuel and the SFC of their engines is not too different in cruise? A little bit of logic would be nice if one had half a mind to apply it.
So data from the designers of the JF-17 is BS?! The 300-500km combat range of the Limited Capability Aircraft is from yourself. After 30 years of apparent development, those are still the official figures it appears. For such a well documented aircraft, don’t you think that’s rather strange?
China has problems in the areas illustrated below regarding modern jet engine development. The point is that they cannot copy certain aspects of modern jet engines because they lack elements of the basic infrastructure. Even when examples of the engine they wish to copy are provided China still is unable to manufacture,
Yep, that is very true, they have had problems in developing a family of engines based on a CFM core, but it’s not as if China doesn’t have any previous experience in engine production, even under license, such as the WS-9 based on the RR Spey. They could have opted to license produce the AL-31 series, but so far they’ve opted to continue purchasing units from the Russians.
yes but where is the proof? We know Russia had such an agreement for the older Su-27s.. of which China broke to produce their own variants.
but so far nothing on the su-33.
since we are on the subject, will Sikorsky receive royalties or fees too? 😉
Therein lies the problem my crispy fried friend, if there is some sort of framework in place, both Russia and China haven’t disclosed it. But if there isn’t anything, then that begs the question, why have the Russian’s put up with it for this long and why do they keep coming back for more? I don’t discount or rule out the possibility of blatant copying, after all, take a look at the domestic Chinese car industry and some pretty clear knock off designs, as well as consumer goods, but sophisticated hi tech aircraft are a different ball game altogether.
As for the Z-20 and Sikorsky, it will be interesting to see how similar the design actually is, and what response, if any, there is from Sikorsky. Will they take the Chinese to court? Who knows.
I am not that convinced it is that simple. If Russia was “ok” with China “copying” Su-33, why did Chinese get T-10K-3 from Ukraine and not got a prototype/serial frame from Russia? Just to look “extra bad”?
Not necessarily “copying”, but “license producing”, with some framework of “royalties/license fees” being paid by the Chinese. Wasn’t the T-10K-3 the “original” prototype? If so, maybe there were some very good reasons to get hold of that rather than any production serial?
Wikipedia figures are old and mostly not reliable..the fact of the matter is that we don’t know the exact figures for either the JF-17 or the Tejas Mk1 from an authoritative source, about whether those figures are based on internal fuel alone or with drop tanks. Considering the fuel fraction figures for the Gripen, Tejas Mk1 and JF-17 (and the not so different SFC for the engines), the combat range difference is not possible in the hundreds of kms.
Unfortunately for you, there is plenty of material out there if you bothered to take your head out of your ass and take any notice.
There is a plethora of material from SAAB which shows the Gripen C’s combat radius on internal fuel alone is 800km and 1,550km on external fuel. Take a close look at the PDFs on SAAB’s site, based on “Signatory’s” very useful post some years ago:
For the JF-17, the very old and now archived PAC site (the one that the Wiki site actually references) gave a combat radius of 1,352km (840nm), although there was no indication of what fuel configuration this was based on, it’s most likely based on external fuel. PAC’s current site gives no details on combat radius.
The chief designer of the JF-17 project gave a presentation on the aircraft a couple of years back at the Dubai airshow, which includes more up to date specs based on the designers of the aircraft itself.
This shows that the JF-17 has a combat radius of 1,400km in the A/A mode (H-H-H) comprising 2x ASRAAM, 2x MRAAM, 2x 1,100l tanks and 1x 800l tank, not that far off the Gripen C. In the A/G mode (M-L-L-H) comprising 2x SRAAM, 4x 250kg bombs, 2x 1,100kg tanks and 1x 800l tank, the combat radius is 1,000km. Interestingly, range on internal fuel alone is given as 1,800km and with the 3 drop tanks is given at 3,000km. We know from the current PAC website that the JF-17 has an internal fuel load of 5,130lbs (2,331.8kg), or 3,000l (http://www.pac.org.pk/jf-17). From the presentation, the 3 drop tanks give a total external fuel load of 3,000l, which suggests that the combat radius on internal fuel alone, and with 2x SRAAM and 2x MRAAM, is aprox >700km, again, not that far off the Gripen C, although there’s no details on what combat load the SAAB figures are based on. Similarly, for the A/G mode on internal fuel alone, 2x SRAAM and 4x 250kg bombs, the combat radius is likely to be >500km. Interestingly, the presentation also shows an empty weight of 6,400kg, lower than the figure on PAC’s site of 6,586kg, and a maximum external load of >4,000kg, with a >8g figure, which actually supports the old PAC claim of a +8.5g capability.
For the Tejas, the current figures of “300-500km” can’t be anything more than based on internal fuel alone, although there’s no details on what load this is based on. But if it’s clean configuration, then the range with any external stores is likely to be considerably less than that. There’s a very good reason why there are no real details on the Tejas’ combat radius, because given all its hype, it falls way short on range compared to other lightweight fighters out there in a similar class, no wonder in some aerospace defense circles it’s called the “Limited Capability Aircraft”.
^ +1, If it really were the case of the Chinese simply “stealing” and “copying”, the Russians would certainly not continue to deal with them, let alone continue to supply weapons under numerous defense contracts. The production of Soviet equipment during the early days was under very different conditions of “Stalinist” type Soviet policies, and it’s doubtful that could have continued after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where upon the new Russia would want to protect its IP and defense exports. And if it really were the case of the Chinese blatantly “copying”, why wouldn’t they copy something like the AL-31, or any other engine for that matter, since they’re having problems with developing their own family of engines based on a CFM core?
Sign In
