GoldenDragonTake picts of all the Axis and Commie planes, Sean. I think they have Zero, FW190, Fagot and Farmer among others. It would be cool. Make sure you take a picture of the Fagot’s tailpipe.
GoldenDragonThe chinese claim with some modification,this FBC-1 can be use onboard aircraft carrier! If China has carrier,I wonder this jet will be use onboard? That will make them the F/18 of PLAN,right?
I’ve never heard anyone claim this. Certainly not the maker of the JH-7.
The JH-7/JH-7A are naval strike fighters but no one would ever suggest you could put one on a carrier with whatever modifications.
GoldenDragonWhat’s cooler is price and its matching bvr weapon, the SD-10. I think there is little doubt that this would be one of the better sellers around. It won’t do worse than the K-8 and the K-8 has sold nearly 200 aircraft overseas with continuing orders at home.
The FC-1 really has no competition in its little niche of a low-cost single-engined bvr-armed fighter for air forces that can’t get the F-16/AMRAAM combination..
GoldenDragonA whole buncha picts in the “China’s news, pics and speculation thread part deux” beginning on page 6 from a lot of contributors.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=33719&page=6&pp=30
A larger picture of the SU-27SKM and girlies is here http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=53748 🙂
GoldenDragonHere’s an interesting report!
According to a Chinese forum, a recent issue of mainland mag called the “The Chinese Air Force,” FC-1 prototype 01 ran into some trouble on July 1, 2004 in Chengdu during a test flight.
Chief test pilot Liang was driving the 01 machine when the fuel gauge began dropping extremely fast. In seconds it dropped from from 700 liters to 200. Liang judged it to be a tank leak. At this time the airplane was still 20 kilometers away from the airport.
Liang managed to glide the ship into Chengdu’s home airfield with the fuel guage at zero. No harm done except the plane handled very well under duress.
Put this under rumors for now. Haven’t heard it corroborated anywhere else.
GoldenDragon$4.5 billion dollars worth of contracts at Zhuhai. I wonder who bought what. I believe one of those deals is six more ARJ-21s.
Of interest is if Sukhoi got a new deal of some sort. The Russians were the most prominent at Zhuhai.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/06/content_389134.htm
US$4.5b contracts inked at China’s air show
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2004-11-06 11:29Contracts valued at some US$4.5 billion have been inked in the first four days of the Fifth China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition, the exhibition’s organizing committee said.
During the first four days, noted the committee, participants from 32 countries and regions have signed contracts, agreements and letters of intent totaled approximately US$4.5 billion.
China is in need of 2,194 airplanes for the next two decades from 2004 to 2023 to cope with the growing demand of its aviation market, China Aviation Industry Corporation I (AVIC I) predicted in its latest report.
The report acknowledges that the rapidly-growing tourism, fast expanding foreign trade, and ongoing, in-depth reform in the aviation industry will calls for a continuously flourishing market for China’s air transportation.
More than 80,000 professionals from various aircraft companies, aeronautic universities, the air force units of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and media organizations at home and overseas have visited the exhibition in the first four days and in the ensuing three days, and the exhibition will be opened to the public, the committee said.
Five airforce teams from Britain, France, Russia and China will give stunt demonstration flights for the viewers in the three days, the committee added.
The November 1 to 7 show has occupied a combined floor space of 16,700 square meters for indoor exhibition, which is about 15 percent more than the previous one.
The China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition is a biennial event. The first was held in 1996, also in Zhuhai, one of China’s five special economic zones.
GoldenDragonAn interesting for the China watcher. Actually a rather important piece because it is laying out China’s views on usage of space.
The People’s Daily is of course China’s propaganda arm so this is a policy outline of sorts.
Basic point is Gallileo forms a new cooperation with Europe. China is making the point that Gallileo is commercial and civilian purposes.
The “monopoly” is, of course, a hit at perceived US attempts at denying space to others (namely, the recent reports that America will shoot down Gallileo because of Chinese involvement.)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-11/09/content_2193834.htm
Sino-EU aerospace co-op to break monopoly
http://www.chinaview.cn 2004-11-09 10:15:27BEIJING, Nov. 9 (Xinhuanet) — China and EU reiterated their commitment to their cooperation on developing their own aerospace technology to offer better tech support for the progress of the human community.
Nobody can dominate the space. The Galileo Program will be completed by around 2008. The Sino-EU cooperation on aerospace technology for the bliss of the human society is irreversible. This is the consensus reached between insiders from China and EU.
It is widely agreed that breaking the tech monopoly in the aerospace is the fundamental principle of the China-EU aerospace alliance.
Insiders believe the Galileo system can be compatible with the global positioning system (GPS) developed by US. With an error less than a meter, Galileo can be used to secure safe take-off and landing of flights or running trains.
The cooperation between China and EU on the aerospace also drew the world’s attention at the International Air Show which just concluded in Zhuhai, Guangdong Province, on November 7.
“Galileo satellite navigation system enjoys promising prospect in China’s transportation and telecommunication sectors. China joins the system for civil purpose only,”Fang Xiangming, Vice General Manager of China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation declared this clearly for the first time during the air show.
He added that as a new generation of satellite based navigation system the Galileo offers a more reliable, more accurate and safer roadmap for users.
Philippe Camus, CEO of European Aeronautic Defense and Space Companyted at Zhuhai air show that the successful development of the Galileo would break the US monopoly. He confirmed the purpose of Galileo was for civil use and viewed the market competition as the reason behind the rumors swirling around it.
Mr. Camus described their cooperation strategy with China as perfect which has been evidenced by his company’s successful experience. He proposed to regard China’s aeronautic and aerospace industry a “permanent partner” of his company.
Mr. Camus, also Chairman of French Aerospace Industry Association promised that all the 25 EU’members would involve into the Galileo Program which was a result of a decision collectively made by EU.
He vowed to get done with the Galileo Program and viewed China as a natural partner of the program.
A Chinese spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has ever made it very clear that Sino-EU cooperation on Galileo is devised for the technology and industry of navigation absolutely for civil purpose and has no intent to be directed to any third party.
Mr. Prodi, Chairman of European Commission (EC) stressed at the launch of the Galileo that the program carried direct bearing on the future of Europe and should be regarded as a fight between monopoly and antimonopoly, as well as a battle in the diplomatic front involving politics, economy, military and national interests.
Even Boeing has seen the prospect of Galileo’s breakthrough in tearing down the global predominance of GPS. For customers, competition brings benefits. Boeing said that the space belongs to the public though the company was a major industrial partner of GPS.
Insiders believe Galileo Program is a symbol of global cooperation on aerospace development pushed forward by China. Partnership is also built between Chin and Brazil and Russia on aerospace tech for peaceful and civil purpose.
The Fifth Conference of the Space Cooperation Sub-committee under the committee of regular meeting between Chinese and Russian premiers was held in August this year to discuss the areas of coordination, the progress of the planning of the cooperation for the next two years, the establishment of offices. The two sides were determined to deepen the bilateral cooperation on the aerospace to be commensurate with the strategic partnership between China and Russia.
Insiders see China’s extensive global tech collaboration as its aerospace industry develops fast.
“The world is in a time full of competition. And it calls for communication and cooperation for a win-win result,”said Zhang Yunchuan, director of Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense during Zhuhai air show.
“China will adhere to its basic policy of opening-up and reform. It will encourage and support enterprises and institutions to play an active role in international cooperation and communication on flights and aerospace within the framework of the country’s foreign policy and international protocols with China as a signatory.”Zhang noted.
(By People’ s Daily Online)
GoldenDragonI don’t think it would be better than the FC-1 in any field except short field abilities. The FC-1 is designed as a fighter form the start. The LFC-16 is based on a trainer.
Where the LFC-16 might have an advantage is that of a tactical strike fighter which the model photos below show. Even there the FC-1 has a slightly bigger (reported) payload of 3800kg.
The 7900kg thrust engine for the LFC-16 stated in the JDW article sounds like a Kunlun II, which is a turbojet. But the three and a half hours endurance sounds like a turbofan. Of course that depends on whether the figure includes external fuel.
The FC-1 is required by Pakistan specs to have a turbofan.
The LFC-16 is being marketed mainly as a strike fighter. The FC-1’s a multi-role craft with the emphasis on A2A with the SD-10.
GoldenDragonWhat’s it? A re-done J-10 with strange fins on its butt? I strongly doubt the sobriety of such a project. Basically it looks like another incarnation of a MiG-21 derivate.]
It is a MiG-21 derivative. The article said it is a rework of the FTC-2000 which is itself a rework of the FT-7 with cheek intakes and the J-7E’s double-delta wings.
So there is no J-10, re-done, or otherwise about it at all. It also said those are “side-plate canards” which any layman could see is an extra lift area. It’s basically a modern bi-plane concept with a multitude of control surfaces including the fins on its butt. The advantages of a bi-plane are lift and manueverability (with a hit on speed.)
This really is where one must take a closer look: A J-7/MiG-21’s take-off and landing runs are around 800 meters. This rework of the J-7 with SuperWing’s concept has doubled the short field performance ability with “a take-off run of 440 m and a landing run of 490 m.”
The “3,500 kg” load is almost twice that of the Q-5 which is China’s (and the PAF’s) most numerous tactical bomber. The Q-5 also has a very long take-off run of over 1000 m.
This seems to be a good replacement with tremendous short field performance and maneuverability and probably little development cost.
GoldenDragonEdisonone, you should cut the habit of posting useless threads after taking some fancy artworks or sketches from various Chinese forums. (that’s funny, you don’t even know how to read the Chinese language) In here we discuss matters seriously and rationally. If you got nothing important to say other than posting meaningless pics and posting derogative comments about asians (you like to do this to the Chinese), go somewhere else and you shouldn’t belong here.
HK Dragon, I’ve spoken to him many times about this. He simply doesn’t listen or care for anything except getting attention.
He takes images out of their original context and misrepresents them. Then he uses long ludicrous subject lines to get attention.
The pictures and subject lines he posts all the time purposedly mislead people because those pictures have totally different intentions in their original forums.
For example, there was a photo-realistic J-9 CG that he took from a Chinese forum which he tried to pass off with misleading questions as a new Chinese project. That was not the intention of the artist. It was a rendering of a historic project. It is downright disrespectful and absolutely wrong to misuse someone else’s work.
When he does stuff like this, obviously the attention he gets comes in the form of ridicule for both him and the subject.
On the derogative statements, Edisonone insults Chinese people in a supposedly “sarcastic” way. But his command of the English language is atrocious so his sarcasm doesn’t work and they sound like true insults with his “pathetic” and “crazy” comments on everything Chinese.
This is why even Chinese people like you or I find his statements derogatory.
Frankly whatever you post in this forum is just BS. And i think GoldenDragon, Crobato and others who are highly interested in the Chinese aviation would agree with me. And i’m surprised why the admin would allow you to make so much meaningless thread up to now.
I think we’ve all agreed for a long time. He has fought with every long-time PLAAF watcher here, including the long-timers from CDF.
I don’t think he is a bad guy but the way he goes about getting attention is insulting and just plain weird.
I don’t think he’s going to change so I try to get him to at least post images with their original captions and in the spirit of the original postings (he owes that much to the original owners and artists) and use short precise sentences instead of long run-on statements with weird, extended sarcasm and allusions.
So far he hasn’t listened.
GoldenDragonNot logical unless you take into account the need to keep a skilled workforce employed.
I posted the size of AVIC I and II before. They both had around 200,000 employees. Boeing by comparision has aorund 80,000.
Probably a bad thing in the long run with massive overcapacity.
GoldenDragonObviously both of you guys have been following these things for years, as I have. You know when and where to pick and choose items from both Russian news sources and Chinese forums so no need to clobber each other over the head on things that we all know how to do when PLA watching.
In this particular case, we can say for a certainty:
1) there is a pause in delivery of kits to SAC,
2) there has been 105 kits delivered (I’m not going to argue with Sukhoi on what they deliver. This is different than what a Sukhoi official might predict on future order,)
3) there are 95 left out of 200.
Now, I should also include that there is second contract or option covering the last 95 as is mentioned in the previous TASS article. This contract came out after the interview with Sukhoy OKB general designer, Aleksey Knyshev. The reason I left it off is because the wording in the article is not clear whether Knyshev actually said it. But there was no mention of this contract in anything I’ve read before. So it is, IMHO, nearly certain that the second contract is attributable to Knyshev or Sukhoi/KNAAPO.
Everything else other than the above four is conjecture. The earlier mentions of SAC possibly changing to MKKs after the 80th J-11 has not been confirmed since by Chinese press. Although it did give us an early glimpse that the 200 J-11 contract is not a single deal where all 200 is of the SK variant.
GoldenDragonNow here is a little speculation for the watchers 😀
A second WS-10 turbofan type, assumed to be the “B” variant, has been installed on an aircraft and will be tested soon, according to a post in the Chinese forums. The WS-10B is supposedly the one for the J-10.
GoldenDragonHow old was Hwang’s Oregon Air National Guard F-15?
It’s probably not crap even though they might be F-15Cs from 1979 and onward, but the Guard does get seconds from the USAF.
GoldenDragonA model of the LFC-16 shown at China Air Show 2004 in Zhuhai from 1-7 November differed from the CY-1; this was a single-seat version described by officials as a “night fighter”. GAIC officials told JDW that two one-seventh scale models have been built for wind-tunnel testing with the expectation that a full-size prototype will be built “within a year or two”. The project has government support, they added.
!!!! VERY interesting news, google! 😀
Little did I suspect in 2002 that they would have bought SuperWing’s concept and get government support for it.
And I don’t think it is for the third world markets only if there is stated official support.
There were a lot of people saying last year that the Guizhou is on its last legs with the FTC2000. The main advanced trainer builder for the PLAAF would have had no product if the FTC2000 bombs (and most people thought or still think it will against the far more advance L-15.)
But the LFC-16 with official backing is a lease on life for GAIC no matter happens to the FTC-2000/JL-9.
This could be construed as a good or a bad thing. It is nice to see an independent design being pursued but it is also a part of an ongoing problem in China where the government is afraid of letting large state-owned enterprise with overcapacity close.
Interesting to see some competition between the companies now.
Extreme competition. The specs and information coming from Hongdu on the L-15 is it has TWR, performance and maneuverability (based on its claimed AoA specs) that is comparable to true fighters. HAIC openly said the high TWR and maneuverabilty are designed in for future variants beyond just trainer.
Now, the FTC-2000 and LFC-16 constitute another family of trainer/fighters.
Both the LFC-16 and the L-15 puts pressure on the FC-1 which is also modular and designed to be capable of being expanded into different types.
Of course, the FC-1 has a set foreign customer as well as partner in Pakistan. It is interesting that the PAF ACM has stated explicitly that the “FTC-2000 and L-15” did not meet Pakistan’s requirements and is pushing for the FC-1 two-seater.
Interesting indeed.
Sign In
