GoldenDragonI’m confused as to the point of all of these Iraninan projects.
The IRIAF, from what I can tell has a sizeable air force consisting of the F-14 Tomcat, F-5 Tiger II, F-4 Phantom II, Su-24 Fencer, MiG-29 Fulcrum, J-7 Airguard, and possible others?
Why would they need all these other airplanes? Are they about to embark upon a major reorganization and possibly retire certain types?
The vast majority of the IRIAF had been around since the 1970s before the embargo by the US. Even under normal circumstances those would be replaced. The Iranians had done a pretty good job keeping them flying but it’s a losing game against the wear and tear of time.
Anyways, embarking on aviation projects don’t result in planes for the day after tomorrow. Projects take years if not decades in some cases.
GoldenDragonEverything I know – or better I believe – so far is from the ACIG team and esp. TOM, that the original Azarakhsh is a copied F-5E and that the maybe Azarakhsh II-called inproved version features two tails instead of one !
There seems to exist no RD-33 powered Azarakhsh at all !!
Deino 😉
PS: anyway, this RD-33 powered Azarakhsh F-20-look alike would be something very nice for a “what-if” modeling project ! 😀
I think there is a lot of confusion as to what is named what. Azarakhsh is generally believe to be aF-5 deriavtive but some are not calling the twin-finned F-5 Saeghe. But aothers are calling the Eurasian-looking trainer Saeghe but that was called the Shafagh before.
I personally believe that Iran has a J85 project that’s pretty far along. Which why you get news of at least two local F-5 variants.
Also the J85 is a time-tested engine that is a perfect beginner’s project for a new aviation industry. It makes perfect sense in developing a F-5 derivative first based on the Iranian version of the J85.
The J85, the F-4’s J79 and the F14’s PW 414 are simply too much of a treasure trove in technology for Iran not to have their own engine programs.
GoldenDragonI think Singtao is one of the more better and neutral newspaper in Hong Kong, of course it’s not with out it’s flaws. Just read one this morning. It is much better than other HK papers like Apple.
Agree, my father reads it all the time. But as far as Chinese military news are concerned, they are pretty much as in the dark as anyone else. HK press in general take bits of news and then add in a lot of “expert” analysis and suddenly those become actual news (which are often then picked up by private magazines on the mainland and then comes out as news which is then picked up by HK press again :D)
GoldenDragonI thought Hong Kong was China. 😀
Yes and no 😀 They compete in the Olympics on their own. They have their own national soccer team. And most of all they have their own tabloid press which had given us lots of interesting read but not always hard facts.
For example, we got reports from HK press that Iran bought the FC-1 shortly after the flight of prototype 01. Because there were Iranian officials there at the official flight, it became “Iran buys FC-1” in HK. There are many instances like this.
Anyways, HK press is not official unlike the People’s Daily.
GoldenDragonAn twin seat Q-5 would be another production attempting to keep itself alive.
Nice picture on the FTC2000.
GoldenDragonSingTao is a Hong Kong paper not China’s.
I wouldn’t trust it completely.
GoldenDragonAll true about Russia’s emperialist expansion into Asia, but the Amur border clashes were in fact started by the PRC, not Russia.
The border clash was started by the Russian claim that they owned the whole Amur river, including when erosion shifted the river’s course onto when is obviously Chinese land.
It can be argued that the Primorye region has got as little to do with (Han-)China as it does with Russia. An independent Manchuria or even Korea could make more credible claims than either Beijing or Taipei.
Heck, it could be argued that the Mongol, Turks and other Altaic peoples has more credible claims to the entire Russian region thousands of miles from the Chinese border.
But the point of argument is that Russian is supposedly “afraid” of China which is ludicrous when it is traditionally Russia attacking China. Also, there is a lot of chutzpah in claiming fear of neighbors in a region that you’ve forced your way in by violence to begin with.
Hardly, the Russian Far East has a dwindling population. Demographics are definately in China’s favour if China wants to go expansionist in the area. Or re-expansionist, if you will 😉
Comrade, Russian had an even smaller population in the Far East when they attacked the area and took it from Imperial China in the 1700s and 1800s. Population size is no indicator of aggression. It wasn’t India which invaded Britain or the Aztec Empire that attacked the Conquistadors.
Demographics had ALWAYS been in China’s favor, not just today, because those areas are contiguous to China not Russia.
There is one big problem though: dishonesty on NATO side. The one condition under which the Soviet Union agreed to the reunification of Germany was that NATO would not expand further eastward. While hardly ever believed in the West, the Soviet Union/Russia has been very weary of an overland attack ever since the early 19th century (in less than 150 years Russia had no less than 5 attacks on it’s territory courtesy of Western powers) and still has a bit of a trauma here.
There were also repeated Russian attacks in the other direction too. Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, the Ukraine and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe had their share of Russian invasion.
Now NATO hasn’t only expanded into former Soviet territory (the Baltic states), but NATO has established bases in other CIS states (Georgia, Kirgyzstan) as well. It’s not too hard to see some justification in Russian fears for Western expansionism, as the West has been repeatedly screwing the Russians West and South over the last fifteen years.
Georgia and Kirgyzstan are free states now. In order to remain free states they might believe that NATO is their only protection.
Also, there were more than a few Russians clamoring for a spot in NATO. Of course, that would bring NATO to Chinese borders.(1)
So the idea that Russia has any reasons to fear NATO today is rather far-fetched. Maybe a few old communists, Comrade.
True, but then again the ‘first line’ troops the Russians have against internal insurgents are MVD troops, not the regular army.
That is exactly my point. Ink was pointing to internal problems as an excuse for maintaining a large military. You need internal security forces not an expensive main force units of the Army and especially not the Air Force or Navy for those situations.
—————————————————–
(1)http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27c/002.html
“BEIJING, May 29: Beijing is watching warily as Moscow cosies up with its old foe NATO, concerned that Russia’s newly forged alliance could in the long run bring the US-led coalition right up to China’s borders.”
GoldenDragon“Please name three theoretical enemies, capable and willing to invade Russia for what purpose?”
I can name two – although I concede they seem unlikely. 1. China, with the long disputed border with Russia and a growing Chinese population on the Russian side of this border 2. The US and NATO, which must still be considerred as a potential enemy.
Russia always attacked China, not the other way around. Russia wouldn’t have such a long disputed border with China if Russians had not taken land from Asians all the way to the Chinese border. Russia is the one European colonial state from the 19th century that has kept its colonial possessions. Britain, France and Spain had all given theirs up.
China has far, far more reason to be afraid of Russia.
The US and NATO attacking Russia? The US is more likely to involved in a war with China over Taiwan than anything with Russia. I see very little recent news from the Pentagon calling Russia a military threat.
There are lots of American reports of Russia being a “security” threat because of fears that Russian control of its nuclear stockpile is unprofessional and in constant danger of being sold to terrorists.
But that is different from US targeting of the Russian military. There is absolutely no chance of war between the US/NATO and Russia unless Russia invades Poland or Scandanavia.
Furthermore, Russia has a large muslim population, many of whom are concentrated in largely muslim provinces and must, therefore, be wary of an expansion of chechen style seperatism.
Russia always had troops of the Internal Affairs ministry and other similiar agencies for that.
If the mainline units of the Russian national army are expected to deal with internal disorders then things are very bad indeed if not outright catastrophic.
Americans would never expect the 1st Marines Division or the 82nd Airborne to fighting to fighting insurgents (who do appear from time to time in the US.)
China use exclusively the People’s Armed Police in dealing with insurgents. The one time PLA frontline forces were used internally (in 1989), it completely demoralized the army and subsequent reports had many of the Army’s leaders say the Army must never be used that way again. Not because they cared that much about the students but because it ruined the sense of purpose indoctrinized in the rank and file.
So unless the Russian Army views muslims as non-citizens, using it for internal strife is a fine way to mess up your armed forces morale and sense of mission.
GoldenDragonAn interesting picture of an actual flying model on a canard-delta design. It looks like it has working control surfaces. But doesn’t look like it had a motor so it’s probably a towed model. Weathering is pretty extensive so it ws tested quite a bit.
The Y-8 model probably dates the picture from the early 1980s.
GoldenDragonChina seems to be pretty adept at getting its hands on western stuff 😎 heard the PAC-3 seeker was compromised or something…. cannot remember where i got that from though…
It has. But mostly through licenses. Aspide, Dauphin, Super Frelon, Crotale, and Python III among many others.
The Chinese commercial fleet is mainly Airbus and Boeing.
Now, if the West had wanted China to depend entirely on its own items instead of Western ones, it would have banned Boeings and Airbuses to China and China would have developed the Y-10.
There is a reason why the West would want China to continue using Western products. This was exemplified by a $2.2 billion order for 26 Airbuses from just two Chinese Airlines last week.(1)
Imagine that kind of money going into the Chinese aviation industry instead of Airbus.
Take the Chinese helicopter market. The western estimates of the Chinese market over the next twenty years would be over 10,000. So Eurocopter is rushing in (and dominating) the entire range of helos from small, medium to large. Dauphin, Super Frelon, EC120, Ecureil and a new one coming up.
Did China have to “steal” these designs? No the French want China to use THEIR designs and THEIR parts. They want the next generation of Chinese to buy THEIR products.
You know what, the French are absolutely smart about this. Eurocopter has domination of the greatest new market in history. There will simply not be another country buying 10,000 helos anywhere else in the world.
The same with commercial airliners. Make no mistake about it. If the West doesn’t sell them to China, it will have to develop those themselves. In that case, hundreds of billions, if not over a trillion, dollars will be poured in China’s own industry instead of overseas.
——————————————————
(1) http://www.iht.com/articles/542938.html
France-China deals awaken Europeans
“The biggest orders have gone to Airbus and the train maker Alstom. China Eastern Airlines and Air China agreed to buy 26 planes from Airbus, with a catalog value of $2.2 billion, while Alstom won a contract worth about $1.7 billion for trains”
GoldenDragonOf course, if it trys to steal as it usually does, it’ll probably have one faster.
How do you “steal” an operational stealth fighter design?
If China had that kind of world-class intelligence capability, it would definitely use it. So would any other country, including US allies.
But there were never a Chinese spy placed high up in the American hierarchy. There were though, spies from Israel and other Western states at extremely important positions.
The example of spying from Israel in the most critical areas of the US government and military is legion.
If you have the intelligence capability, you use it.
I actually think that China doesn’t really, otherwise, it would be much further along. Its “stealing” consist mainly of learning Western and East Asian – Taiwan, Korea and Japan – commercial manufacturing techniques not military.
Hard to imagine Chinese spies in US DOD design laboratories stealing a stealth fighter when most Americans are instinctively suspicious of a Chinese person.
For example: the nuclear scientist spy from Los Alamos, Wen Ho Lee, is instinctively thought to be a Chinese spy. But he was a Taiwanese whose wife actually spied on China for the CIA! The instinctive reaction against any Chinese was that strong.
Most Chinese were pretty happy that he was caught. Of course, Taiwanese-Americans began complaining about racism and the case was conveniently dropped for “lack of evidence.”
They found evidence alright, but it was of him spying for Taiwan, not China, so they didn’t pursue further 😀
GoldenDragon1) OK, why not. 🙂 The strongest animal in Russian wildlife is the polar-bear.
There isn’t a Siberian Elephant?!?
To go with the Siberian Tiger?!
GoldenDragonAs for the USAF not regularly training against active radar AAMs, only recently has a potential aggressor been getting those types of weapons into it’s inventory, if you can even call China an aggressor anymore (I don’t, personally).
Well, France could go crazy, Sean.
GoldenDragonOn the FC-1 and the WS-10A. An open architecture doesn’t mean that you put in something that is outside the design limits of its architecture.
The FC-1 is obviously designed for a mid-sized engine. So if Chengdu had access to the GE 404 or the SNECMA, it would be able to use those.
But a 13200kg heavy engine requiring different fuel consumption, weight and air intake would obviously required the whole airframe to be redesigned and made much bigger to accomodate greater weight, heavier bracing and different airflow.
This is exactly what we are discussing with regards to a 15% larger F-5 and two RD-33s. It is theoritically impossible. The F-5 could take one RD-33. But for two, it would have to be much larger.
So a good exercise in think through the design limitations that aircraft designers face.
GoldenDragonGood post on the fuel consumption of the four major middle thrust turbofans, Flex! You laid the numbers out nicely.
The reputation for RD-33 as a “gas-guzzling” engine comes from the Germans who called the MiG-29 a “thirsty” machine. (1)
This reputation might not be only because of the engines but because of the amount of maintenance required on the MiG-29 as a whole. (2)
But the raw numbers on consumption clearly show the RD-33 and F-404 to be very similar though the 404 consumes 8% less in afterburner (8% is rather large but very little of an engine’s life time is spent in reheat.)
I think this reputation is people assuming that the expense incurred in operating the MiG-29 is because of the engines.
—————————————————————-
Notes:
(1)http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/NEWS/Presse_Schweiz_01.htm
“Daily many DACT ‘hops’ were scheduled, averaging to about fourteen MiG-29 sorties per day, but these numbers have to be put into perspective. Each mission comprised a maximum of 25 minutes flying, which unveiled the MiG-29’s Achilles heel. Being a real gas guzzler, the Fulcrum’s autonomy is very restricted and considered a major worry in its air defense task.”
(2)http://www.fabulousfulcrums.de/NEWS/Presse_Schweiz_01.htm
Comparing maintenance on the F-18 with the MiG-29
“The Hornet’s low maintenance needs – one flight hour equals about 25 man hours of maintenance work – added to the high operational status throughout the exercise. In this field the German counterparts were in for a challenge, since one MiG-29 flight hour requires no less than 80 man hours of servicing. Although during the exercise the objective was to have six Fulcrums operational at all times, the Germans ferried eight aircraft to Dübendorf to absorb this Giant’s work.”
Sign In
