Luckily for your hobby, Strevitel, that you’ve started this Flogger thread here.
It seems that you can no longer continue your insanely long and irrelevant MiG-23 thread at CDF since the powers-that-be had finally enough of you.
Now, Strevitel, you should have known better than to employ the same crazy droning and insulting tactics in your argument with Tom Cooper that finally broke the camel’s back at CDF. Cooper writes books on the subjects of MiGs, for chrissakes! 😀
Well, best of luck anyways 🙂
I only wanted to know if this “low visibilty” thing in Russian aircrafts is due to some technological limitation, whilst canopy design and materials may not exactly fall in the realm of hight tech when compared to avionics and stealth, it may be an engineering challenge. A case in point is the canopy of F-22 which is considered to be unique in world, in that it can withstand bird impacts at higher speeds compared to any other aircraft.
You hit the nail on the head. The one-piece bubble canopy of the F-16/F-22 is exceptionally as hard to make. Not only is fabrication hard but the right material science that allows the canopy to deal with heat, force, darkening, distortion and, on the administrative side, cost.
The F-16’s canopy is well-known as an immensely expensive component. Russian planes tend to use heavy framing to deal with both optical distortion (you need the front flat) and heat and force stress at high speed. Also, the clarity of the canopy material changes under exposure to sunlight and heat so that a canopy could darken or become opaque over time.
There is no less science going into the F-22’s canopy than the composite in the wings and fuselage.
Here’s an interesting picture of an early PLAAF Tu-4 AWACS at the China Aviation Museum. The Tu-4 was a B-29 clone. The engines were WJ turboprops instead of the B-29 Cyclone radials.

is that IT?????
The KJ-2000 AWACS.
Also
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27093
Rumsfeld may visit China
Stars and Stripes
WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has agreed in principle to pay an official visit to China, a significant step toward revitalizing a military-to-military dialogue forced into hiatus after a Navy surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter collided in international airspace in 2001.
“Secretary Rumsfeld is interested in visiting China this year,” a senior Defense Department official said Tuesday. No final commitment had been made and no date had been set for a visit.
He said the most recent military and defense policy white paper released by the government in Beijing described in troubling ways the American military presence in the Pacific and characterized the security situation regarding Taiwan.
The American presence in the region “complicated security factors,” The New York Times reported the Chinese military document as stating. And the situation in the waterway dividing Taiwan from the Chinese mainland is “grim,” it added.
During recent talks, Pentagon officials pressed their Chinese counterparts to explain those choices of words, which the Defense Department official described as “an escalation in the level of rhetoric.”
The Chinese military’s buildup across from Taiwan is “a substantial increase in capability” and “is an issue of concern to us,” the official said.
In recent bilateral discussions, the question of expanding reciprocal visits has come up, with the American delegations pressing for improving the quality “of what we get to see and do,” the official said.
Pretty important stuff.
Headline story from the “Stars and Stripes” (pub of the US military)
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=27093
U.S. and China discuss hot line, ‘rules of road’ on ship, aircraft encounters
By Jon R. Anderson, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Thursday, February 10, 2005ARLINGTON, Va. — Nearly four years after a U.S. Navy spy plane was intercepted off China, the two nations are working on an agreement that would use a hot line between its defense departments, and clarify a “rules of the road” when aircraft or ships encounter each other.
If successful, the two-pronged effort would allow direct communication between the respective tops and bottoms of the two chains of command and, U.S. officials hope, diffuse future flashpoints.
Richard Lawless, the Pentagon chief of Asian affairs, led a team that met with Chinese brass in Beijing last week to discuss the proposals, according to a senior defense official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity.
U.S. leaders have raised the two ideas repeatedly in recent years, to no avail.
“We’ve been attempting to break the impasse,” said the official. A spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington declined to comment on the negotiations.
when used in the antiship role with kommorans under the wing over the north sea and baltic, how many missiles would the starfighter carry? it had twp pylons under each wing, could it lift four or was just two the normal loadout? if just two did it carry any other weapons like missiles(sidewinders) aswell? ive sen photos of taiwanese starfighters with two sidewinders on pylons under the forward fuselage(under intake area), would these pylons with missiles be carried aswell if the germans used them? what attack profiles was used on antiship? low and fast but burning fuel under the radar? also at what range would the starfighters radar pick up the enemy ships? good theres by the way, love the starfighter…
According to Bill Gunston’s Modern Airborne Missiles, the F104G was replaced by the Tornado which can carry four instead of the F104G’s two.
The Germans also used the forward belly pylons for sidewinders. Though I now sure if the loadout would include the AAMs under anti-ship mission.
Here is a F104G from MarineFleiger 2 at Eggbeck firing off a Kormoran. I can’t see the AIM-9 pylons because of the Kormoran’s exhaust but I don’t believe the AAMs were carried.

The Kormoran is slightly bigger and a bit faster than the Harpoon. It has a range of around 25 miles.
A well known item to PLA watchers but still a surprise to many US military fans who see it.
The Blackhawk in commie service 😀

Well, there is a difference between day-trip spotting and the overseas/cross borders planespotting sojourn 😀
Most Chinese spotters are day-trippers at the local airport/air base/communist factory proving grounds.
The vast majority of the taken pictures (as opposed to magazine scans) in the Chinese BBs/forums are from locals at places like Xian and Chengdu. Also, tons of ship-spotting picts from Shanghai, Guangzhou and Dalian.
You Dutchies are world-ranging sojourners and so are expected to be a little grubby 🙂
It’s really a wonderful example of planespotting not just in China but of anywhere in the world. Look at the reactions of the people involved. A snapshot at the moment of great joy. The guy with the camera, his girlfriend, the big binoculars and the JJ-7 overhead.
It’s really a great photo that could be put into a volume like “A Day in the World of Planespotting!” 😀

A H6D carrying a YJ6 practice AShM.

The MA60 was developed from the Y-7 which itself was developed from the An-24.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-02/04/content_415166.htm
China aims for int’l aircraft market
(CCTV.COM)
Updated: 2005-02-04 14:23The country’s self-designed MA-60 commercial plane went on display at an international gathering in Xi’an.
A new Chinese Modern Ark is flying up into the sky. MA-60, a regional aircraft, is newly developed and manufactured by China’s Xi’an Aircraft Industry Company. The company fully owns the intellectual property right of the aircraft. With 60 seats, the regional plane has been proved to be safe, economical and comfortable. China hopes the new type of aircraft can find its place in the international market.
The price of the MA-60 stands only about two-thirds of the aircraft of the same kind made by foreign manufactures. And the direct operation cost is 10 to 20 percent lower. Zimbabwe is the first to buy the China-made regional aircraft. The country signed the purchase agreement with China National Aero-Tech import & Export Corporation to buy two MA-60s in last November and is confident in the performance and operation of the airplane.
The two MA-60 airplanes are planed to be delivered to Zimbabwe in April. China aims to export 20 MA-60s aircrafts within this year. According to China Aviation Industry Corporation, several countries are now in talks with them to buy the plane. They hope the figure can be increased to 100 by 2008.
Hu Wenming, Vice-President of China Aviation Industry Corp, said, “The significance of the export of MA-60 aircraft is not simply about the plane itself. It shows that China’s aviation product and standard are accepted by foreign countries. We hope, with the support from the government, our airworthiness regulations can be recognized by more countries. That will help us to expand the overseas market.”
Currently, China’s airworthiness regulations or standards are still not accepted by western countries like the United States and the European Union. This makes it difficult for China to export its aviation products. China’s aircraft producers hope the technical barrier can be lifted some day in the future and They can have a fair footing with their overseas competitors.
For you playing “hope” on the word “chance” is you playing on semantics on wishful thinking that “chance” can still mean your hope that China’s aviation industry is behind India’s. The race is only in your mind. No one else gives a damn. Semantics don’t change reality of the events leading up to this point.
Stating the obvious, Crobato. Why else is Nitin even commenting in this thread? He has no interest in the PLAAF, merely a misplaced sense of rivalry.
ALL of us speculate to some extent. How many forum members are actually part of the aerospace industry? Or from intelligence services with information about the planes debated?
If he’s not interested in the news, pictures and speculation of a thread explicitly named “China’s News, Pics and Speculation” then he should try another thread that meets his particular interests.
There is a general discussion forum for political comments/questions. Go post your nationalistic opinions there. Keep this a news and aviation discussion thread.
Just add some sweep to the K-8’s wings and it would look like a Hawk.
Btw I’ve noted that the Hawk, Alpha Jet, K-8, FMA Pampa and the Super Galeb all share basically the same design. Any comments on why is that so?
The K-8 was designed during a period in the late 1980s when both China and Pakistan were firmly in the Western camp. The Hawk was cited as one of several western trainers that NAMC (now part of Hongdu) and PAC looked at.
The classic straight wings with large lift areas of basic trainers are there for low stall and landing speeds as well as spin recovery. Deltas and sharply swept wings force high takeoff/landing/stall speeds which are dangerous to trainees.
This is why you can’t have a supersonic, winged-delta like a FT-7P be your basic trainer.
Yes, probably the prototype of the model shown at Zhuhai. Pictures of which was posted in an earlier rendition of this thread.
The size looks like that of the Y-7 and is powered by two turbofan instead of turboprops. Not sure it will replace the MA60 but probably not the Y-8 because of size and the fact that the Y8X is already under development. Also turbofans are less efficient than props unless high speed is needed.
There was a post that the new transport is intended as a trainer/gap aircraft for the eventual heavy turbofan transports envisioned for the next decade (possibly licensed-build of a current Antonov design.)
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=33719&page=6&pp=30