DeinoIndeed, I wouldn’t contend that myself at all. Nevertheless the comparatively low cost is an important thing to note.
Oh, and my pleasure Echonine. I did actually have another link somewhere but I can’t for the life of me find the thing.On-topic, I await the T-50’s first flight next year with great anticipation. Perhaps then this debate will finally gain some substance.
Sorry … but Your sources only speek again of …
The latest addition to the large T-10 (Su-27) family is to become the interim fighter for the Russian Air Force before fifth-generation aircraft are launched into mass production
no word on “a contract is signed” !! …
The creation of the Su-35 is an important step for the Air Force and the aircraft industry. Taking into account that a fifth generation fighter would not be in mass production in Russia before 2015, the Su-35BM will help to close the gap, replacing the older Su-27s, which will be decommissioned starting from the next decade.
… in the same manner as the any future combat aircraft “will help” to … no word on “a contract for the delivery of xxx aircraft is signed”.
Programs to modernize the majority of these aircraft have already gotten underway, though financing has to date been insufficient. The state armament program for 2007–2015 projects the modernization of 408 frontline aircraft. As of today the Air Force has received about 36 modernized Su-27SM fighters, 11 Su-24M2 frontline bombers, 10 Su-25SM assault bombers, and two MiG-31 interceptor-fighters. The majority of these modernizations are limited and relatively inexpensive.
The state armaments program to 2015 projects the delivery of 116 generation-four-plus fighting planes, including 56 Su-34 frontline bombers (not counting the two delivered in 2006), and 60 Su-35 (Su-27BM) fighters. However, production of the Su-34 is facing delays and a Su-35 prototype is expected to make its first flight only in 2008. In any case, it is clear that even if the state plan is fulfilled to the end, only four of the existing 39 frontline regiments will receive new aircraft, and a maximum of 18 will see some modernization of their planes. We may thus expect to see further quantitative reductions to the operational strength of the Air Force before 2015.
To be honest … these are all the same political statements within the high-ranking military or the instustry like “the Su-34” will be, will, will, will … nothing happened so far.
Deino
DeinoWell the “why” is clear: Antonov badly needed cash, the Russkies kindly offered some. With collaterals 😀
Source: I’d have to shoot you 😀 On a more serious note, it’s a private contract about R&D property and intellectual property in a former Soviet Union state… meaning what is means. You’ll never see any document corroborating this on the net. On the other hand, the official proprietor of the R&D tech data is Antonov Technavia Ltd, based in Cyprus, 80% of the shares owned by GORAvia Moscow Plc, based in BVI, that is in turn owned by a trust that happens to belong to OAC of Russia. And now I’ll willfully drink my polonium dosis myself 😀On the other hand, the Russians have bought all the insurance rights for the said project, and that is an official governmental statement – that’s the reason why.
:eek::eek: Thanks for that info ! … but as I said I don’t expect Russia to continue with that project, so why invest a lot of money, which is already “dead” since Ukraine won’t / can’t (?) continue and finilase it alone ??
Any idea, what Russia plans to do with it ?? … and next: What aircraft does russia plan to build as the An-12 successor ?
Deino
DeinoThe whole tech. documentation has been bought by Russia two years ago and the Russians have several times stated that the whole expertise and design work is now their property. If the Ukrainians will share their know-how and transfer blueprints to the Chinese, it will effectively mean the end of any form of cooperation between Russia and Ukraine concerning this project. It will be not a rebirth, but the final death blow to the An-70.
First of all why ???
(only to prevent the Ukraine finally to build this plane ?? … as I don’t expect Russia to proceed with a Russian version of the An-70)
… and second ! That’s the first time I’ve heard this … any source !!??
Deino :confused:
DeinoThis thread is created for the purpose of discussion, which is mostly about how crap the PAK-FA is at this point and how great the F-35 and F-22 are. :rolleyes:
That’s strange … I thought long, long ago this tread was created to discuss “news” … but since a only slightly shorter time-span this tread is used by some fan-boys to glorify a fighter, which is not even flying, eqipped with a radar with a so far unconfirmed performance, armed with ultra-hyper-super-duper long-range missiles that can blow out of the sky everything, but are not produced so far … . This tread is mis-used like so many otherv treads here by some Russian fans just to persuade how superior Russian projects are !
Only strange that all we hear from them is “will be better”, “will be more manouverable”, “will have a more powerfull radar”, “will have more powerfull engines”, “will be equipped with ….”
We all will see some day in the future …. especially as its so important to You !
Deino :diablo:
Deinonew website up in 10 days – or 3 weeks (?) been left “High and dry” on the old one.
missed their slot at the printers, so 25 may be off the presses as late as Boxing Day (!) but 26 will follow straight on (yeah, right….) very sorry, etc etc.
Bit grim really.:mad:
Thanks for that info … but “Boxing Day” 😮 … that’s 26. December if I’m correct !
Deino 🙁
DeinoA good one..
In fact I don’t care who says what. Not even pilots or officials since they, too are expected (even forced) to say the things in favor of the aircraft they use.I am not very much into these *hey, my fighter has 1deg/sec better turn rate and gets to 10.000ft in 2 seconds quicker than your fighter*. I fail to see what sense does it make..
I, too, have my personal preferences but you don’t see me saying *hey, my fighter dominates everything and you must take it for granted because I said so..*
Agreed … and sorry if You misunderstood me; I didn’t want to offend You.
I just wanted to describe a – sadly now very common – situation here in several treads, which annoys me very much, as most discussions are more or less senseless as we all know most “sources” have their own intention behind, we seldom know the real circumstances under which a specific performance was archived and at least its seldom one fighter against another one and the better one will win. It’s the situation, the other assets, which contribute, training, tactics and so on and the pilot itself which are IMO at least as important as “my fighter has 1deg/sec better turn rate” or “its thrust-to-weight-ratio is slightly better, my missiles have a longer range but Your radar is more powerful. …
Deino 😉
DeinoAnything new about IAPR volume 25 ?
Sadly not …. 🙁 I admit I don’t know what happened.
Hopefully end of November.
Deino :confused:
Deino@ Flex … and so we are all – once again – at the point where “some” of us favours more a Flanker … other’s more the J-10, even if we all know that most of these “official” statements from both sides have to be taken with a grain of salt … isn’t it so ?? 😉
MNaybe this one fits quite nicely to “our” situation …. :diablo:
Deino 😀
DeinoAn interesting post found at sinodefenseforum.com by “tphuang”
so, as you guys might have seen, there was a great article recently posted that was an interviewed with Lei Qiang, one of the test pilots for J-10 program.
So, one of the big shrimps on Chinese bbs posted his thoughts regarding Lei Qiang here.Basically, he just talks about how the upper level in PLAAF didn’t know how well J-10 would fare against su-27. So they asked Lei Qiang for his assessment. Unlike a more conservative/shy pilot would do, he clearly listed the areas that J-10 are better and the areas that su-27 are better. He ended it by saying that he definitely thinks J-10 can dominate su-27. So, they actually took su-27s flied by top pilots from one of the elite units and put it again J-10s flown by test pilots. And J-10 won handily. That is how J-10 project got supported. This man has also flown F-16 and Mirage III in Pakistan. He has also traveled to other country to see the tactics of other country’s pilots. Basically, he has had some experience with modern Western fighters and tactics. His comments to PLAAF bosses and then the subsequent performance of J-10 vs su-27 probably ensured the success of the program.
Deino
DeinoJust found at a Chinese page … :diablo:
DeinoAt CDF is an interesting interview Interview with the chief test pilot of J10, Senior Col. Lei Qiang:
Just to discuss … 😉
This is an interview of Senior Colonel Lei Qiang, chief test pilot of J-10. The pilots that flew J-10 in Zhu hai air show are his student and student of student.
Interesting points in the article.
1. J-10 project started in the mid 80’s with no specific name, only called “3rd gen fighter” or “New fighter”.2. When they first started selecting perspective test pilots, only fighter in China that had HUD was J-7M. So they used a Yes/No test to screen them. That is, each person was given 0.3 second to view a HUD image, and determine if it’s correct, and they had to identify 100 pictures in a row with no mistake to pass. Lei Qiang was the first to pass, second was Lu Jun, third was a staff officer from an airbase.
3. The three were later sent to Israel to fly LAVI simulator in 1986,
4. They formed a 19 member test pilot team, of the 19, 9 were selected as “first batch test pilot” group, participating fully in the design process. Then 5 of the 9 formed the chief test pilot group for the actual test flight.
5. Lei Qiang and Lu Jun were sent to Russian in 1993 for test pilot training, practicing tail spin and Su27/30. But Lu Jun later died in an accident, so Lei Qiang was the only one flying the entire test flight phase.
6. The change of J-10’s landing gear door from two piece to three piece were Lei Qiang’s suggestion.
7. Lei Qiang flew tail spin recovery in Russia to familiarize with triangle wing tail spin recovery, then on Su27 to familiarize with 3rd gen fighter operation
8. The shape of control sticks, placement and function of buttons on the stick and around the displays are the work of test pilots.
9. Lei Qiang first saw the full scale wooden mock up of J-10 around 1990
10. He helped to determine placement of instruments, canopy opening, feedback on the stick, controls on electric switch, engines, etc.
11. Lei Qiang first met Israeli scientists in 1984, as part of test program for firing PL-8 on J-7. Firing PL-8 will cause J-7 to roll sideway 40 degrees, and if pilot compensate right away, the smoke from missile to stop the engine.
12. Lei Qiang had NO EXPERIENCE FIRING MISSILES in 1984?! (Shocking, isn’t it.) He didn’t know to compensate for the roll right away, but that’s how his engine didn’t stop from the smoke. And that’s the solution they decided on, so when PLAAF J-7 fires a PL-8, the force from the launch will cause the plane to roll, and the pilots are instructed to not compensate for 2 seconds. (Another typical PLA non-technical solution to a very technical problem)
13. From this experience, Israelis told Chinese that their plane sucks, and Israel has something far better. (Guess that’s how they wind up going to Israel to fly the Lavi simulator)
14. When they first started designing the J-10, neither the designer nor the pilots can conceptually grasps the operation of FBW system.
15. 60% of the technology used on J-10 are new.
16. Lei Qiang’s first real experience on a FBW aircraft is on a British converted LearJet in 1995. There he experienced what PIO could be like.
17. When conducting high speed taxi test, they almost could not test lifting up the front wheel because CAC’s runway is too short.
18. Lei Qiang did flight demonstration of J-10 to foreign guests, and probably did a tail slide then going directly into a vertical climb. Exact wording are: After vertical climb and turn, I did not turn on afterburner right away and accelerate vertically, instead allowed aircraft to drop slightly before turning on afterburner.
19. The first flight of J-10 were done in unstable configuration.
20. First flight were in 1998, march 23rd
21. During first flight, the responsiveness of J-10 so surprised lei Qiang that he shouted, “WTF!”
22. J-10’s instantaneous roll rate is more than 200 degrees/sec.
23. During the first two years of J-10’s test flight, Lei Qiang was the only test pilot! (another shocker and WTF, what if he crashed and died or injured? The whole project could have died)
24. 04 prototype tested a new engine. 05 prototype was testing domestication. (What does this mean? J-10 wasn’t domestic up to that point?)
25. To train to be a test pilot, Lei Qiang had went to Israel, Russia, UK, Sweden and Egypt for training, Russia for 5 times.
26. J-10 is not a copy of Lavi. Israelis taught them how to design aircraft, such as using computer for design, simulation and analysis.
27. Israelis saw J-10 taking off with full external load. (Wonder when did that happen)
28. Maximum sustained turning G load for J-10 is 8.9. Lei Qiang flew it starting at Mach 1.2, 1000 meter, full afterburn. Speed dropped to Mach 0.6 after a while. (I guess they aren’t kidding when they say triangle wing bleed energy during tight turn) Lei Qiang was 48 at the time, seemed to have broken a record for highest age and longest time flying at 8.9G.
29. J-10 was transfered to flight test academy after 05 prototype flew.
30. 01 prototype flew to academy on a lot of internal fuel (I’m guessing full internal) and drop tanks. After arriving at Xian, he still had more than 1 hour of fuel left before reaching landing weight.
31. J-10’s turning radius is much, much smaller than J-7. J-7 seems to take 30 seconds to complete a full turn.
32. According to Lei Qiang, F-16’s horizontal turning capability doesn’t measure up to J-10. J-10’s vertical turning capability is even with F-16. Su-27’s vertical maneuver capability is stronger than J-10 because it has higher T/W ratio. Horizontal turning is even. But rolling rate J-10 is much better. At Mach 1.2, Su-27 has roll rate of 20-30 degrees/sec,(this has to be a mistake) while J-10 has more than 200 degrees/sec.
33. According to Lei Qiang, J-10’s instrument is better than F-16 (although this is probably only true compared with Pakistan’s F-16A) and much superior to Su-27.
34. J-10 can perform the Cobra maneuver, up to 160 degrees . (This would be a sight to see if it’s true)
Source: http://www.china-defense.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=23&st=2225&gopid=95295& (post: 2233)
Deino
DeinoHey … thanks a lot for posting !
Deino 😉
DeinoThat would be a fantastic airshow routine if it were 6 airplanes instead of a time lapse photo of one airplane.
Does anyone know if there are plans / considerations to reequip the PLAAF-aerobatic-team (1. August) with the J-10 ???
Deino
Deino…. In two years the “Fat Herc” will be nearly flying, and that platform has pedigree and sound engineering to build upon.
I may agree with You that a STOP for two years would most likely mean the end …. but to say the Fat-Hercules is flying then and “that platform has pedigree and sound engineering to build upon” is a JOKE:
Take a look how many problems LM had with the “J” and any larger, wider, fatter or what-ever version will be nearly a new aircraft as You caon’t only widen the fuselage.
CHeers, Deino
DeinoThank You Deino
I would like to Know more about the Tejas trainer (PV5) from AFM
Sorry, that I omitted the info: The picture was taken on October, 25. at HAL’s facility in Bangalore during a visit by Defence Minister A.K. Antony to review the progress on various HAL projects.
It is reported that the once for late December planned first flight will most likely occour only in March 2009.
Deino
Sign In
