GoldenDragonFrom “MiG-33” and Yak-43 thread :
The Chengdu FC-1 is based on the Mig-33.
fightingirish
Not even close. The FC-1’s lineage and inspiration is based on the F-16 if anything.
GoldenDragonA few points on the thread:
1) The article clearly states Lockheed Martin will cut 1,700 pounds of weight through reductions. No small amount. The other 800 pounds will be solved by recovered thrust by tightening seals, air flow, etc.
A pretty good solution, if you ask me!
2) PILOTGHT’s “british dogy dogy pets” is among the more colorful insults I’ve ever come across in this forum.
GoldenDragonIf, the PhAF is threaten by Mig-29’s and/or Su27/30’s its going to need more than F-16’s!
Depends on the F-16s. The MLU A/B is more than capable enough to take on both. Actually, for smaller air forces with limited maintenance, the chances of a F-16 being able to fly and not be laid up, like a MiG-29 or even Su-27 is far, far greater.
GoldenDragonWhy would Russia wish to attack China..arent commie + commie = Brothers… ??
The lineup involving the strategically relevant nations across the vast landmass of Eurasia on February 18, 1979, the day China invaded Vietnam, was
USSR and the Warsaw Pact and Vietnam
VS.
US and NATO, China and Pakistan.
If WWIII had broken out then the USSR would have been fighting on two massive fronts. US felements would have operated from northern Chinese bases. In fact, the CIA operated listening posts in China against the Russia until 1989.
In fact, the 1979 invasion should be seen as part of the Sino-Soviet War, not simply a China-Vietnam affair.
Background to the Chinese invasion: China, the US and the USSR were engaged in proxy wars around the war, but especially in Indo-China and Africa. The Cuban troops intervened directly on the Soviet side in Angola against Chinese backed UNITA so when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, China termed the Vietnamese “Cubans of the East.”
The rhetoric that someone needed to stop the “Soviet, Cubans and the Vietnamese” was actually drumbeat that the Chinese propaganda arm employed during that period.
Chinese premier Deng Xiaopeng thought the West and its allies were in retreat against the Soviet bloc. He told Pres. Carter that if the US, then in the malaise of the aftermath of the Vietnam War, did not act then China would, the USSR or no USSR.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, US National Security Adviser, during the Carter administration said Deng’s message to the Carter administration during his landmark visit to the US in 1979 was the “greatest display of raw power politics” he ever seem. (1)
China basically said it was willing to test the USSR alliance with the Vietnam. Shortly after China’s invasion of Vietnam, people waited for the Soviet response which never came. (2)
Notes:
Brother Enemy:The War After the War Nayan Chanda (1986)
The title comes from the fact that the main parties involved, Cambodia, Vietnam, China and the USSR were all communist “brothers” š
(2) http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/elleviet.htm
“Moscow was clearly concerned what might happen when the Sino-Soviet treaty reached its 30-year term. Beginning in 1969, the USSR frequently urged China to replace the 1950 treaty with a new agreement. During 1978, Soviet forces were increased along the Sino-Soviet and Sino-Mongolian borders. Moscow also sought to force Beijing to come to terms by intensifying diplomatic relations with Hanoi, signing a twenty-five year defense treaty with Vietnam on November 3, 1978.
Instead of backing down, however, China announced its intention to invade Vietnam on February 15, 1979, the very first day that it could legally terminate the 1950 Sino-Soviet Treaty and it attacked [Vietnam] three days later. “
GoldenDragonA more indepth look at the situation from the Washington Post (which would normally be the authoritative version of DoD stories.) It includes the aerial refueling probe problem Albert pointed out for the British C-130Js (though the article mistakenly called them pods instead of probes.)
This is shaping up to be a big deal that could affect other aquisition programs.
washingtonpost.com > Nation > National Security > Military
Air Force Faulted on 50-Plane Purchase
Transport Craft Fail Key Readiness TestsBy R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 24, 2004; Page A01The Air Force spent $2.6 billion to buy 50 transport planes that do not meet the military’s requirements, preventing squadrons based in six states from being fully prepared for their missions in the Middle East and elsewhere, the office of the Defense Department’s inspector general disclosed yesterday.
After conducting a lengthy investigation set off by a whistle-blower’s phone call, the inspector general’s office concluded that the Air Force used an inappropriate procedure to buy the C-130J transport planes from Lockheed Martin Corp. and then mismanaged its production. It also said that senior Defense Department weapons-acquisition officials failed to provide the program with “effective oversight.”
The 34-page report from the inspector general’s office is its second major critique this year of the Air Force’s top acquisitions official, Marvin R. Sambur. In April, Joseph E. Schmitz, the Pentagon’s inspector general, accused Sambur’s office of mismanaging contract negotiations for the production of a refueling aircraft derived from the Boeing 767. Schmitz said the Air Force had circumvented the required procedures to sign a contract costing from hundreds of millions to several billions of dollars more than necessary.
A classified paragraph in the April report said the Boeing 767 program shared “the same unsound acquisition and procurement practices that are currently evident in the C-130J program.”
Sambur, in a statement appended to the new report, said that the C-130J program is “properly managed,” the manufacturer is meeting its delivery schedule and the planes have been cleared to drop equipment over land and water and to conduct medical evacuations. The planes will soon be able to perform other missions, including airdrops of troops and heavy equipment, he said.
Other military officials confirmed yesterday that the planes have not passed key readiness tests, and so no C-130J has been used as planned by the Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard or the Marine Corps in combat zones or military assaults. Specially modified versions have also not been approved for psychological operations and electronic warfare or for monitoring hurricanes.
That means that two squadrons in Mississippi — as well as others in California, Rhode Island, Maryland, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — are either relying on a dwindling number of older planes to assist the military’s Central Command or are unable to carry out their missions at all, according to the report, signed by Assistant Inspector General Mary L. Ugone.
Air Force and reserve officials said yesterday that pilots are training for these functions and that the planes may be ready for more missions within the next year or so. Lt. Col. Guy Walsh, commander of the 175th Wing of the Maryland National Guard in Baltimore, confirmed that the C-130J transport planes that the wing has had since 1999 or 2000 are still not rated as mission-ready and are undergoing modifications at their base. But he said that “the progress I’ve seen has been tremendous.”
Maj. Wayne Bunker of the Marine Corps Aerial Refueler and Transport Squadron 252, based in Cherry Point, N.C., said he has a “favorable” attitude toward the dozen new C-130Js that have been based there for the past 18 months. But, he said, that “it’s not desirable” to be unable to use them operationally, and that making the transition from an older squadron has been burdensome. The aerial refueling pod on the C-130Js never worked, he said, forcing mechanics to pull the pods off older planes and to retrofit them onto the new ones.
An Air Force spokeswoman declined to comment. But Lockheed spokesman Joe Stout said in a written statement that the C-130J program is meeting cost, schedule and contracting commitments and that the company supports the written comments of Sambur. He also noted that Australian, British and Italian military pilots have flown the plane into Iraq and Afghanistan.
The C-130J was conceived by Lockheed in the mid-1990s as a commercial aircraft and was sold to the Air Force as an “off-the-shelf” plane requiring minimal modifications for military use. But Lockheed has not sold a single one of the propeller-driven planes to a commercial user, and the purchase price of a basic plane has risen steadily from $33.9 million in 1995 to at least $62 million in 2004.
The planes are undergoing a fourth set of modifications and, as of the end of 2003, had 33 outstanding deficiencies considered capable of causing “death, severe injury or illness, major loss of equipment or systems, or directly restrict[ing] combat or operational readiness,” according to the inspector general’s report. Congress has approved spending $4 billion for the planes, and the entire program is likely to cost more than $7.5 billion.
Under Pentagon contracting rules, commercial-style acquisition relieves contractors of the obligation to furnish cost and pricing data to military auditors. It also means Pentagon reviews of the production are truncated, and it enables contractors to be paid — often in full — for weapons systems before they have been tested to ensure that they meet combat needs.
In eight years, the inspector general’s report said, “not one C-130J delivered aircraft was fully compliant with the contract specification. . . . The Air Force did not properly manage the program.” It cited the fact that Sambur’s office paid Lockheed “almost the full price” for every deficient plane and approved a new multiyear contract in March 2003 despite the absence of a “stable design.”
“It’s pretty outrageous,” said Eric Miller, an analyst at the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan research group that has studied the C-130J program. “Cooperation with a defense contractor is one thing, but turning a blind eye to inferior workmanship is another. . . . It makes you wonder if anybody cares or is accountable.”
GoldenDragonFile this under speculation
If not, it would have been in the FC-1 thread.
But anyways … according to a short post in Chinese-language wforum:
60 FC-1s for Egypt?
Probably nothing, or just an expression of interest.
GoldenDragonROmania is the poorest country in europe and ppl speak of Mirage 2000-5 and things like that ?
Romania is hardly the poorest in Europe when you have Albania and Bosnia š
Anyone read AFM lately? Albania is scrapping/selling off its fixed-wing fleet almost entirely.
Romania will have fighters at the very least.
If we need to talk money, the Romanians do have an interesting tale concerning their MiG-29s.
Romania to Sell Last of MiG-29 Fleet
BUCHAREST, Romania — Romania plans to sell its last 18 Soviet MiG-29 fighter aircraft and replace them with Western-made planes, the air force chief of staff said Tuesday (20 July). Gheorghe Catrina said the defence ministry had decided it would be more profitable to sell off the warplanes, rather than to try and modernise them. The MiGs were decommissioned two years ago. He announced plans to acquire 48 aircraft between 2008 and 2012 to replace the current fleet of 100 upgraded MiG-21s. The country also intends to buy four Hercules C-130 heavy-duty and nine medium-haul transport aircraft as well as 12 helicopters and six ground-to-air missile systems. The move is seen as part of Romania’s rearmament programme following its accession to NATO earlier this year. (AFP – 20/07/04)
Romania had mothballed its 18 MiG-29s two years ago and these planes (like the ones in Bangladesh) actually have a lot of life in their airframes. Most of the Romanian MiG-29 fleet were delivered in 1989.
And I would have thought that 100 Lancers and 18 MiG-29s would be an affordable hi-lo mix like Vietnam’s 100+ MiG-21s and dozen or so Su-27s.
GoldenDragonThe Air Force has continued to order more C-130J planes even though the contractor, Lockheed Martin, has not delivered one that met requirements in the eight years since the program began, the report said.
Two Air Force squadrons have not been able to perform their missions for more than four years because they have only C-130Js, the report said. The 815th Air Squadron at Keesler Air Force Base, Miss., and the 135th Airlift Squadron of the Maryland Air National Guard are supposed to drop troops and supplies into hostile areas.
Why would you continue ordering planes if there hasn’t been one meeting requirements in eight years? Wouldn’t you refuse delivery until you get one that meets the requirements?
And how do you sideline two operational squadrons for four years (!?!) with planes you know couldn’t perform the needed duties.
Puzzling. But I hope it doesn’t lead to an attack on the C130’s future development (yes, the base design is 50 years old but I like to think that are such things as a timeless design.)
GoldenDragonare you sure about that? are either the kunlun II or the other one as far down the line as the WS10?
Actually, the Kunlun II (1) had much more publicity than the WS-10A and is probably pretty well advance in its development. Though, according to notes, it’s actually a turbojet and the Kunlun III might be a converted turbofan. I couldn’t find to too much on the Southern Aero-Engine company’s turbofan.
At any rate, I think China is as far along with a medium sized alternative as it is with the WS-10A. For example, we know that the South AeroEngine Co. has already developed the WS-11 for the K-8.(2)
It would be very strange if they developed a low thrust turban (WS11) and a high-thrust one (WS-10) but not a medium one for the FC-1, especially considering the sensitivity of Russia components being exported to the PAF. There is no way there isn’t at least a Chinese alternative.
Whether that alternative powerplant is as good as the RD-93 is another matter but there would be an alternative, even if they needed to plug in a turbojet like a Kunlun.
however, these composit materials should mostly be used to save on weight and/or help reduce RCS, as such will not be critical to the plane’s flight performance.
The problem with substituting material is because if a wing is created with stiff, high load bearing composite material with a certain chord (thickness) then a weaker material like metal would need a much thicker chord to withstand same amount of load and you throw off the areodynamics. Or if the new material is not stiff enough then airflow would be different. These are replicated across the entire plane until the disparities are added up into something very difference from the original plan.
Unless you have designed a plane, like the FC-1, which is expected to have changes, then you can’t expect to degrade airframe without serious trouble.
It is easier to upgrade airframes, say going from heavier and softer metal to lighter and stiffer composite but downgrading the airframe where you change lighter, stronger parts for weaker and heavier parts would ruin the plane. You can only downgrade avionics and engines safely.
———————————————————–
Notes:
(1) http://www.idds.org/acr2003/707e4CAR02.html
“4 November AT THE ZHUHAI AIR SHOW CHINA INTRODUCED A NEW TURBOJET ENGINE, THE KUNLUN II, TO POWER THE F-7 AND F-8 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT. The engine develops a thrust in excess of 53.98 kN, 76.53 kN with the afterburner. According to a spokesman for China Aviation Corp Iās Shenyang Engine Institute, which developed the Kunlun series, it is “the first [Chinese developed jet] aero engine which has finished the whole process of design, pre-production, test, and “test-flight.”
For comparision, the RD-93 is 49.4kN and 81.4kN afterburner.
(2)http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/2001outlook/aw347.htm
“China National South Aeroengine Co. (SAC) (Zhuzhou): Developed and built six series of more than 20 engines types including WZ8A turboshaft for light helicopters, WJ6 turboprop for medium transports, WJ6G1 and WJ6G4 for industrial applications and seaplanes, HS6 for small transports and agricultural planes, and WS11 for preliminary trainers.”
GoldenDragonGuessing by the last pic, SONG-class + 15-20%.
Well, it’s easy now with the last pict š
Yeah, I say that’s a good figure. Still the same amount of torp tubes but a more streamlined Albacore shape for deeper water operation. What are the advantages of two subs with nealy the capacity (assuming they keep both)?
A high/low mix for SSKs seems strange. I would assume hi-lo would be in the form of SSN/SSK but the two types do operate in different environments. Unless you have AIP, you probably don’t want a conventional sub in blue water operating a long ways off from base.
GoldenDragonNice shots. Were the IL-76s and the AN-12 (?) American leased?
GoldenDragonGodd for you, Flex! I was failed engineering major in college š
And I’m now more into the quick modeling advertisement/entertainment software packages such as Maya and 3DS Max than CADs. Yes, Catia is a CAD first and foremost, but it has had a full fluid dynamics engine for the past several versions. Even 3DS Max has fluid dynamics plugins, including one called Reactor. It’s much simpler than the high end, industrial programs.
Virtual reality
But I don’t mind having a real private Grob of my own
Yesterday 15:56
Let’s start a virtual air force thread! š
GoldenDragonWelcome back, Sean! You’re still out in the field with a laptop or you’ve been rotated back to civilization š
2006? The XAAM-4 project has been around forever.
GoldenDragongood points, but what about the engine?
as far as i know, not even china has a suitable domestic engine for the FC1 yet, so if pakistan is to be able to build any more then the 150 on order, or to export any abroad, then it will have to get more RDs from russia, get a production licence (which isnt very likely), copy the RD (not a very cost effective or politically wise move), or develop a brand new engine of their own or have china do it for them.
the J10’s WS10A engine is chinese, so there is less hassle there;
Ah, Plawolf, the J-10 is actually in the same position as the FC-1 prototypes as far as the powerplant is concerned. They’re both using Russian engines for now.
China actually has two medium-sized turbofans roughly in the range of the RD-93 (8300kg of thrust): the Kunlun II of Shenyang Jet Engine Research Institute and another one from the Southern AeroEngine Company (1) under AVIC II.
The WS-10A is developed for the J-11B first and foremost. It was test flighted on a J-11 which has its mountings in entirely different positions from the J-10.
So developing and testing a J-10 version WS-10A might take the same amount of time it would take China to fit either of the two domestic turbofans to the FC-1.
As for downgrading the J-10, you could downgrade avionics but you really can downgrade the body and the airframe so a less sophisticated industry could build it. It has to be designed that way. The FC-1 is designed for a smaller industry than China to build and develop on its own. This FC-1 has, as Alan Warnes said in AFM, the ability to revolutionize Pakistan and other small air forces around the world.
This thing is designed with an open architecture on practically everything and that includes the engines.
Notes:
(1) Chinese Airshow, Part Two, 2002
“Southern Aero-Engine Corp., also subordinated to AVIC-2, will probably bring to Zhuhai its newly developed turbofan engine (competitor of Kunlun engine) as well as new air-to-air and air-to-ground missiles.”
GoldenDragonThe actve RBE-2 will enter service in France when the meteor will be ready (around 2012)
This contract is more to secure export order of the rafale I think.
Secure an export order from the Netherlands? I wouldn’t think that would be possible considering the Dutch are among the earlier partners of JSF. With the amount of F-16s they have they don’t need a gap filler until the JSF arrives.
Sign In
