GoldenDragonI’ll say this for Jane’s, they’re never stupid enough to pass off obviously amateurish photoshopped nonsense as fact- if I have to choose between CMF and Jane’s, I’ll take Jane’s.
Jane’s had better be better than an open internet forum.
But the truth is, I’d trust Jane’s on most stuff but not its Chinese material. The SD-10’s so-called “Russian” seekerhead is a perfect example. They ignored the Chinese developer Louyang for a year before AGAT came out explicitly denied it.
GoldenDragonAh, but the reason they modified the F-5 instead of the more capable F-4 and F-14 is because the Freedom Fighter’s subsystems, including the J85, are within their current technical abilities to adapt and build.
Otherwise, they would have gone for modifying the F-14.
Anyhow, unless the new twin-engined F-5 derivative, the Arakarsh, is dependent entirely on old junked F-5 engines and spares – unrealistic in my view since the IRIAF F-5s’ engines are close to three decades old – Iran has to be able to build its own engines.
Also, the Tazarve trainer developed by Iran uses the J85 also. It seems to me that Iran is building a series of planes around the J85 powerplant that they are familiar with.
GoldenDragonJ85 is the perfect engine for Iran to build on, SOC. It is well known to the Iranians.
It’s also an older turbojet design that is supposed to be cheap to make and is expected to be replaced after a fairly short service life. This cuts down the need for the advanced material science needed to recreate the lifespan and extended usage between overhauls of western turbofans. Heck, even Russian turbofans today are anywhere from one-half to even one-fourth the longevity of western engines.
Iran has a blueprint in China which used the Tumanski R-11 as a base that it developed into a large variety of engines for the J-7s and J-8s.
Except that Iran has a much better base in the J85 than the Chinese had in the Tumanski. Once this is tackled, there is the P&W TF30 turbofan on the F-14.
The wealth of American technology in the IRIAF fleet would make a Chinese aviation engineer’s mouth water. Good luck to the Iranians in reverse engineering the stuff. It would be nice to see the development of a separate industry based on the technologies from F-4, F-5 and F-14.
GoldenDragonThat the PAF will get the J-10 comes from PAF officials themselves.
Remember, the J-10 was (and still is) unofficial in China when the PAF made the extraordinary step of mentioning it by name earlier this year. Previously, the PAF had used terms like a “new fighter from China” which we at this very forum debated if it meant the J-10 or a new FC-1 variant.
It was the PAF’s explicit mention of the J10 that gave hope to many PLAAF watchers that the J10 would be made official at this year’s Zhuhai airshow.
As far as the Chinese government is concerned, the J10 still doesn’t exist. The shroud of secrecy would be lifted only if there is export to anothr country – otherwise, as long as it remains in China only, there is no reason to publicize it.
It is the PAF which cited the plane in an official capacity so it is they who are lifting the covers on the plane. Considering the close relations, Pakistan wouldn’t mention an ally’s officially nonexistent plane unless export would make continued secrecy moot.
GoldenDragonI find a 45-year-old man calling himself a Hamburger and attempting to act cutesy in an adult aviation forum not only extremely queer but positively bizarre to the point of disturbing.
GoldenDragonNope, I’m not going to address this burger weirdo and his homo-erotic postings.
“Ooooh, I’m so cute. I’m a Hamburger. I post pictures of half-naked guys so I can insinuate that someone is gay. Oooh, I’m so cute and funny.” :rolleyes:
GoldenDragonAND besides being mostly good chaps, Aussies produce lots of sexy beach babes 😀
GoldenDragonAs far as racism is concerned the Aussies demonstrate little of it – aside from China Threat proponents (parroting US concerns I guess because I have no idea how China EVER threatened Australia.)
As a Chinese I can say I would feel far more comfortable in OZ than Australia’s SE Asia neighbors.
Indonesians killed close to 500,000 Chinese in the 1960s and raped (and murdered) hundreds if not thousands of Chinese women and girls in 1996-8.
Malaysia had periodic pogroms that killed hundreds of Chinese.
Vietnam forced hundreds of thousands of Chinese ethnics into the sea as “boat people.”
It was Australia that took in the boat people. It was Australia that took in tens of thousands of ethnic Chinese fleeing for their lives and hoping for a better future for their children than the racial apartheid that is common in Malaysia and Indonesia.
Only ingrates and hypocrites can ever say that Australia is “racist” compared to what had been done in Asia countries.
What was done to the aborigines is horrible. But Asians from countries like Vietnam, China, etc. have NO reason to complain.
I’m pretty pro-Asian. But I’m not a hypocrite.
So lay off Oz.
GoldenDragonThere’s a certain grain of truth in what this guy said. But I wouldn’t take any of it as verifiable yet. WS-10A at 32,000 kgs of thrust has been printed in several Chinese publications and is nothing new.
While the J10 will almost certainly fly with the WS-10A one day, everything we’ve seen so far points to the J-11, not the J-10, as the main recipient.
The reasons are the following:
1. the WS-10A has already flown in the J-11,
2. the feedlines and other mountings on a Su-27/J-11 is in entirely different positions from the J-10,
3. the need for TWO WS-10As for every indigenized J-11 would tax any production,
4. developmentally, it is only prudent to wring out a new engine design in a two-engine craft like a J-11 (it is better to have ONE of your two WS-10As fail than your ONLY WS-10A fail,)
5. and finally, China has ordered up to 300 AL31FNs, this indicates a very large batch (or batches) produced with Russian engines which makes sense given the time needed for development of a WS-10A able to fit the J-10.
I think the PAF will eventually get the J-10 with the WS-10A. But from what we see so far, the first J10 with a WS-10A could be as late as the 301th production J-10 and that would be quite a few years down the road.
GoldenDragonInteresting tidbit: according to a recent official release, the North Xi’an Photoelectricity Company is selected to install a multi-purpose display system on the K-8.
The K-8 with a glass cockpit. It seems that there is continuing development of this good selling little plane 🙂
GoldenDragonF-15 (Tyndall) accident board results are out on a rather rare ‘unintended’ ejection….
http://www.airforcetimes.com/print.php?f=1-292925-340719.php
Mark
That is just crazy, man! HAH HAH HAH HAH – sorry
I always thought the ejection ripcords for US seats were situated overhead to avoid just this kind of mistake. Maybe that’s just the Navy.
GoldenDragonThe Zhuhai airshow is scheduled from Nov.1 to Nov. 7. Lots of online buzz for this year’s because the air performances are back as well as heavy presence of new projects in the flying prototype stage that could end up at the show: FC-1, FTC2000, JH-7A (or FBC-1M), J7F, J8F, MA60-500, Y8F400, Z-11.
Of course, the BIGGEST buzz is always for a possible unveiling of the J-10 and once again that probably won’t happen. There was heavy disappointment in 2002 when the J-10 was a no-show. People weren’t even looking for an actual J10 to be displayed just some official acknowledgement.
GoldenDragonI don’t know how this aircraft really is, but i can say one thing, it has a very good war record against Arab MiGs.
Well, practically every dedicated Western fighter that had engaged MiGs in numbers has a “very good” war record against MiGs – F-86, F-8, F-4, F-16, F-15 and Mirages of every stripe (including the Kfir.)
GoldenDragonNeeds big holes to lower in the escalators and the Olympic-sized swimming pool.
GoldenDragonCarrying a mbt or any apv is a small part of airlift. Heavy armor needed to mount a major frontal assault or ground campaign is done by sealift not through the air.
Any offensive ground force carried by something like a A400M, a Herk, a IL-76 is for force insertion and that by definition means paratroopers and special forces – light forces. Formations meant to take and hold strategic ground for a short period with support from air and naval assets until the heavier ground troops arrive in numbers.
The Stryker idea disputes that whether the heavy divisions and their heavy armor are even needed in today’s threat environment where the main enemies are lightly armed and fast moving terrorists and third world forces. Speed is more important than firepower and armored protection since even the light forces have firepower that overwhelms any potential opponent. But debating that is beyond the scope of this thread.
Suffice it to say that A400M fits in well with the rapid reaction force of about 60-80,000 that Europe (well, France and Germany) has envision for itself.
Even the US Army has no intention of ever fighting a major ground war needing MBTs in heavy divisions brought to the scene by airlift alone.
Dismissing the A400 for being unable to carry more than one MBT is rather off the mark, imho.
Anyways, lift capability aside, the A400M is politically rather secure because of Airbus.
Sign In
