GoldenDragonI never can across a specific US Navy evaluation of the F-16 vis-a-vis the F-18.
Remember, both the F-16 and F-18 were originally evaluated by the US Air force for its “light fighter” or the low portion of the hi-lo mix. The high being the F-15. As a single-engined aircraft in the 1970s when the USN was trying to go two engine standard, the F-16 was never in serious consideration. The Navy looked at the loser of the USAF contest, the YF-17, as a good naval development platform because of its twin engine configuration and its larger size.
The F-18L, a land-based F-18 variant without any of the weight penalty navalization, was supposed to match the F-16 in maneuverability. And it also have, like all F-18s, a higher angle-of-attack than the F-16. A land only version of the F-18 was never made though. Not even for countries like Finland which wil neverl fly the F-18 off a carrier.
The F-16N was a special variant for the aggressor units. It had no guns, non-standard radar and a whole bunch of stuff done to save weight — which actually led to cracks and other problems. It was never considered for the fleet.
GoldenDragonFixed canards on the M2K.
GoldenDragonM2K has canards? :confused: Where?
On its inlets (also note the moveable cones to deal with airflow differentials.)
Besides, N-LCA dropped canards as it did not provide any significant advantages
It wouldn’t because the LCA tailless delta was not designed for canards. It would probably degrade its performance.
GoldenDragonArguably not “modern” but as still functioning aircraft in air forces scattered across the globe, the A-4 and the J-6. These things will turn inside any modern aircraft on the horizontal but lacking in raw power to deal with the vertical (though a J-6/MiG-19 on half-empty tanks has tremendous TWR — for about five minutes before it needs to land somewhere.)
When the US Navy tested their new F-16Ns at Miramar (original home of Top Gun), they found that it to be the most maneuverable plane encountered by the Navy for its entire envelope — both horizontal and vertical and across all speed and flight regimes. But it also found out that this lightweight and stripped-down F-16 still could not consistently outmaneuver the A4 which was operating as the main aggressor along with the F-5 . And the A4 was primarily used as a Navy strike-bomber in Vietnam!
The modernized J-7E/PG/G variant with the double delta wing is another contender for maneuverability. Probably a bit lacking in the vertical but the double-delta wings allow it to approach a stripped down F-16.
GoldenDragonOn paper, I agree with you, that the LCA is more advanced than the FC-1.
Not really. The FC-1 has far greater combat range (1200km to 850km) with the same top speed. It also has some modern concepts such as DSI and the extended LERX that the LCA’s very basic tailless delta cannot incorporate. To be perfectly honest, the tailless delta is 1950’s and ’60s design — F-106, Mirage III, etc. LCA supporters can point to Mirage 2000 as a modern aircraft. But the M2K actually makes use of canards and a large amount of external lift and control devices not seen on the LCA.
Devices placed at the front of the plane like canards, DSI and LERX spoil the air flow for the rest of the aircraft. Unless there is enough tolerances designed in the beginning to accept these things, they cannot be used. For the LCA, it would probably take a massive redesign.
The DSI especially is an important modern device. It saves weight which is one of the cardinal attributes looked for by all fighter manufacturers. If you could incorporate DSI into your design then you would do it. We know the FC-1 could take in this technology in short order but we’ve yet to see the LCA accept any aerodynamic changes.
So we could see that the FC-1 is a bigger plane and that its basic design could take on board all sorts of aerodynamic devices. The LCA is pretty much locked into its current configuration by its small size and its basic shape, a canardless, tailless delta.
As for project time. The FC-1 actually began in 1999 with the signing of the joint agreement between Pakistan and China. The LCA is a single project from the 1980s. The FC-1 might have inherited some of the ideas from the Super-7 project but it is an entirely new aircraft. The FC-1 is a successor of the Super 7 project.
The Super 7 was based on Chengdu’s J-7 parts and assembly infrastructure. The FC-1 is based on the J-10’s. In fact, most of the FC-1’s project team, including the lead designer and lead test pilot came over to the FC-1 project after the completion of the J-10.
Design-wise, the FC-1 is actually a far more modern aircraft.
GoldenDragonIt seems that the Chinese have realized, that an unpredictable nuclear hot-spot next to their economic zone is not in their own intrest.
In the Far East, only in Japan has there been major indignation at this. Even in South Korea, there hasn’t been much reaction on the street. There is none in China. The US makes a much bigger deal out of this than almost everyone in Asia (save Japan.)
From the strictly Chinese point of view, nukes in the hand of NK or even Japan doesn’t change the overall equation concerning China since the PRC already has thousands of nukes trained on it from the United States. Japan is already protected by nukes — American ones.
Chinese reaction along its border with NK currently is strictly to keep the United States from taking military action against North Korea which China doesn’t want.
In the long run, clearing the North Korean (and the Iranian) problem would just allow the US to concentrate on China. So it is arguably very much against Chinese interest to fully deal with North Korea. It is far better to keep it as a buffer state even as a nuclear armed one.
Any Chinese reaction against North Korea is probably hammered out between Washington and Beijing with the US giving up ground in other policies (trade, Taiwan, Chinese interests in the Middle East, Africa or South America, etc.) in quid pro quo deals.
GoldenDragonIn order for the FC-1 to use the WS-10A, it would have to be redesigned to hold with a heavier engine (which includes dealing with all the different force vectors that comes from a much more powerful powerplant spinning and generating heat inside of the aircraft.)
Now, might Pakistan or China in the future use the base FC-1 design to scale up for the WS-10A or maybe for two WS-13s (Chinese built RD-93 class turbofan)?
Possibly but that would mean a different aircraft. For example, the J-8 is a twin engine J-7 but it has become a very different aircraft with massively different flight characteristics and envelope from the J-7.
GoldenDragonWhile some information is available about WS-10A (the replacement for AL-31), what would be the chinese alternative to RD-33.
No, it is a much larger engine.
The RD-93 is a 75 KN engine comparable to the Ge 404 (which currently powers the Gripen.)
The WS-10A is a 125 KN class engine comparable to the F-100 series (F-16.)
A way to look at things. Most of the world’s modern (turbofan-powered) fighters use engines of two particular thrust classes. They are either single or twin versions.
Single engine RD-93/404 class: Gripen, LCA, FC-1
Twin engine RD-93/GE/F404 class: F-18, MiG-29
Single engine AL-31/F100 class: J-10, F-16
Twin engine AL-31/F100 class: Su-27, F-15
GoldenDragonFlanker existed before MKI and so did the Super-7 (with or without JF-17).
The Flanker actually existed before the MKI. It existed in the hundreds and was successfully serving in multiple air forces when India bought a license.
The Super-7 was a project that didn’t exist except on paper.
Introduction of DSI also can very well imply a bold decision to overcome a less than expected performance.
Expected or not, you could either improve the performance in short order as it was done in the FC-1 or you continue with the original airframe design and just make do with it.
In order to make changes to the aerodynamics of the airframe that quickly in the FC-1, it is almost certain that those possibilities were designed in place from the beginning. The DSI is major weight saving feature. If it could be done in other aircraft safely it would be done.
Also it can point to the fact that the design was not frozen after 1989 and work was indeed carried out on it.
It what way? I have no idea where you are drawing these conclusions. The DSI concept was not part of the Super 7 in 1989.
All the airframes can use radars, engines of the similiar size. Again
Really? All air frames? Then had the US decided to modularize its aircraft with the teen series (F-14, 15, 16, 18)? The fact is aircraft not design in a modularized way can’t. You have to do massive development to accept even components of the same size if they weren’t modularize from the start.
Aircraft like A-4, MiG023, J-7, etc. are are not modularized.
WHAT IS the particular design feature of this project that enables it to be a “modular” plane?
Are you refusing to read what I said or you have no comprehension of what is “modular”?
Again, I repeat just for you:
Till now, there is EVERY reason why the JF-17 must be modular as the Chinese publications said. Pakistan had not picked the engine, avionics suite or radar in 1999 and they have not even today as the Pakistani press makes clear. The first batches will have Chinese equipment and a Russian engine which was not the case in 1999 and which might not be the case in 2008.
In fact, the 1999 agreement stated specifically that those areas are decoupled so that the project could advance quickly and it did.
If you design the FC-1 to accept engines of a corresponding size and it is not restricted to a particular engine then it must be modular. Even more so if you design an aircraft where you don’t know what the engine might be. In 1999, Pakistan was not sure where to get the engine and radar set. It was unsure if it wanted a full FBW.
In fact, the rapid changes we see in implementing DSI and LERX we see in the 04 and 06 prototypes compared to the 01 and 03 almost certainly meant that even parts of the airframe like the inlets and leading edges are modular with the aerodynamics of a range of possible inserts already factored in by the initial simulation/windtunnel tests.
GoldenDragon1) Super 7 as a project did exist before the JF-17. Only thing left was fabrication of prototypes and that has also been the case with MKI.
The Flanker’s been around far before the MKI. :rolleyes:
The Super 7 project basically came to a stop when the US embargoed all work with China after 1989. For all intent and purposes, the project which was designed with American avionics, radar and engine was mothballed. It would have used the J-7 parts infrastructure.
The FC-1 is based on the J-10 backend infrastructure. The lead designers, test pilots and engineers came from the J-10 program. In fact, at AFM, we first predicted the timing of the first test of the two-seat J-10 variant to the exact month from an article on the FC-1’s design chief!
So how did they “decouple” the airframe from the engine? How did the plane provides more flexibility in terms of integartion of avionics? Till now, there is not a one reason as to why JF-17 is decoupled or “modular”.
Till now, there is EVERY reason why the JF-17 must be modular as the Chinese publications said. Pakistan had not picked the engine, avionics suite or radar in 1999 and they have not even today as the Pakistani press makes clear. The first batches will have Chinese equipment and a Russian engine which was not the case in 1999 and which might not be the case in 2008.
In fact, the 1999 agreement stated specifically that those areas are decoupled so that the project could advance quickly and it did.
If you spend x hrs in integrating airframe x with a suitable engine and u spend x hrs in integrating JF-17 with its corresponding engine – its NOT a modular design.
I have no idea what you are attempting to say. If you design the FC-1 to accept engines of a corresponding sizes and is not restricted to a particular engine then it must be modular for it to be able do so. Even more so if you design an aircraft where you don’t know what the engine might be. In 1999, Pakistan was not sure where to get the engine and radar set. It was unsure if it wanted a full FBW.
In fact, the rapid changes we see in implementing DSI and LERX we see in the 04 and 06 prototypes compared to the 01 and 03 almost certainly meant that even parts of the airframe like the inlets and leading edges are modular with the aerodynamics of a range of inserts already factored in by the initial simulation/windtunnel tests.
GoldenDragonThe IDF has TC-II, probably a more mature MRAAM than the PL-12. Its integration with the Golden Dragon radar likely to be more complete and tested out.
GoldenDragonTo me, the whole Taiwan political arena is a mess. Both ruling and opposition parties don’t really care about the defence. The next election (which happens almost every year) is the most important one, how to put bad names on the rivals are more important.
Why should they? The Pan Blues see funding of the defense as worthless since they view war over Taiwan’s separation as not worth fighting for.
The Greens don’t even trust the Taiwanese military since the ROC Army, Navy and Air Force was trained under the KMT with a goal towards re-unification of China not separation. Also, a very large amount of KMT officers and ex-officers have family members in China or are living in China itself. The Chen administration had repeatedly tried to cut off pension payments to ex-ROC veterans living on China but was resisted by the military.
The Greens want the United States to fight their battle. Just as the South Vietnamese administration wanted the US to fight its war back in the 1960s and 70s. Making a dubious (to the DPP’s mind) Taiwan military strong is actually counterproductive.
GoldenDragonSo what is this nonsense about pakistan owing 50% of design?
If it is “nonsense” then why make such a big deal of it? Are you trying to get into an argument on meaning of the English language? What does “owning a percentage” of house or a business means? Would you divide half the house or half of every room? Or half of every appliance and convenience? Half of a toilet or vanity? :rolleyes:
I’ve no idea of what point you’re trying to make.
GoldenDragonDid CAC tell you that? Have you seen the contract?
Nope, but I’ve seen enough reports from the official Chinese news agencies (and official Pakistani agencies and Western aviation publications) on the FC-1/JF-17 to know. The FC-1 is a shared project. In fact, if it weren’t for Pakistan, CAC would probably have never built the FC-1.
You can’t say that about the Flanker. The SU-30 would still be around with or without the MKI variant.
Secondly, why is JF-17 more modular than say Gripen, as you claimed before ?
:rolleyes:
You are are the only one to mention the Gripen. I said nothing about the
Gripen or that the FC-1 is “more” modular than anything else.
You don’t need to lie to get my attention, kid. :rolleyes:
The FC-1 design which was initiated in 1999 had avionics, engine and even the flight control system decoupled from the air frame. It is a modular design that left as much of its systems for future insertion as possible precisely because of Pakistan’s situation. This made the FC-1 an altogether different project from the Super 7 which depended on Chengdu’s J-7 infrastructure. That’s all there is to it, don’t attempt to read more of it from that.
GoldenDragonGD, how does some one own 50% of a design? One wing, half cockpit… How?
It shares in half the development course and therefore shares in the results.
If you think ownership means a percentage of every aircraft then the Germany, UK, Spain and Italy would be flying with just 25 percent of each Eurofighter :rolleyes:
Shared ownership means each nation involved in the design has the ability to use and sell that design or variants of that design (in the manner agreed to with the other partners.)
India cannot not make a Flanker outside the MKI (unless the contract is altered) but Pakistan can make as many FC-1s or variants of the FC-1 as it wants or is able to make. That is the key difference.
Sign In
