over GThe guessing of the PAKFA’s shape is interesting, some people think it will be a “Raptorsky”, other say it will be a “black widowsky” others (like me) think it will be based on the Flanker layout (which could ending looking like the black widow, anyway)…
Now there is an interesting question, about the bomb bays that supposedly were tested on the su-47…why to test them on that plane?..why the doors and bays were not tested in a su-27?
If we are looking for hard evidence, this could be the “hardest” one :), anyway, is a pakfa feature (the bomb bays), but then of course , is just a speculation.
So probably the pakfa will have the su-47 intakes/airframe , probably with separated engines, with engine cones acting as radar blockers (why not?, no s-duct), and a su-34 nose (based on the aesa shape)
over GIs the source code that relevant to integrate weapons?
I mean, Amraams are integrated with the Typhoon, was the EF’s code given to the USA to complete the integration?
I’m not claiming anything, just want to know.
EDIT:
There are other examples , like the french recon pod used by the su-34, i doubt russians delivered any code for it integration
over GAll I have to say to that: NO software codes, NO buy!!! Simple.
Is not the code source the language of the program?
They have all the right to keep it for themselves, why to share the code?, this is probably a patented code, and rather than hidding “alien secrets”, are just protecting their copyright to aviod ilegal programming.
I’m not sure if was the same situation with the F16s sold, but what would be the gain if Europe or other customers are getting the source?, are they planning to desing new programs?? i don’t understand why all this fuss.
Add more fuel to the F35 flamming, i guess
over GI wouldn’t want the foreign services getting a sneak peek at the F-22’s strategies and abilities. Save them as the ace in the hole, so to speak. Twenty years from now, when the newness is worn off and something better is available we can squander this ‘hidden quantity’. Until then please keep it safe from prying eyes.
20 years of a boring concept with nothing to add for aerospace technology other than some cool angles, nice photos and a rabid fanbase, and still people think is especial or has secrets…
I don’t know why the deployment was canceled..but that reason is probably the worst to think about, specially when the plane has been seen on shows here and there
Or probably because they were afraid of there these nasty french pilots gathering data..priceless….
over GSounds to me the J-10 can not be modified into a F-22 type aircraft, not even the J-10B, sounds like they want to either misinform or simply bluff the media.
Even Russia made a J-10 type aircraft the MiG-1.44 but they decided for the PAK FA, why? simply not so competitive to an F-22
Why?, because canards are not “stealth” enough for you? :rolleyes:
Nothing really has proven canards are not suitable for low RCS requirements
If China manage to design a 5th generation plane with the unstable canard delta concept that will be a truly step ahead for the 5th generation technology, The things were close with the JSF, when actually canard delta was extensively considered, and later was discarded because balance issues for the navy and the VTOL versions, China design leadership is definitively ahead than, for example India which for it 5th gen aircraft is stuck on the final JSF concept, very sad.
The 144 was a Mig project, and they are still considering to use that concept for it potential 5th gen plane, but Mig did not win, and instead sukhoi was selected, because politics and government contacts, mainly.
Mig had designed a much better 5th gen aircraft than Sukhoi
Now, “much better” is as well relative, since sukhoi is now very interested on the market participation, rather than the old soviet sukhoi, that was more interested on performances, or at least, to do what the Soviet Union wanted.
An excellent example is the Su-37 /35 evolution, the 37 was something the SU wanted, as the ultimate interceptor, while the 35 is what Sukhoi is offering , as a better multirole machine…
Either way , is a very wise move to design a 5th gen aircraft from the J-10 concepts, although it will probably look more like a stealthiness 144 rather than a J10
The funny thing, is that , if they are successful, the russians will burn inside by jealousy, and i think they will deserve it…
over GRussian engineers would say whatever they can say, as if there are not interests in their comments…as if in any case, the chinese would let them to know all the “stolen” documents..
If i recall well, the russians were there just to install the engine, how the heck would they know if the j10 was a lavi copy or not?
The airframe, the configuration of the J10 is completely different form the Lavi, you can post here a Janes (lol) article, and babble about it, you can whine all you want, but that plane is chinese by design and industry.
And is not that i like the China’s fanbase…but definitively there is no copy there
over GNobody said the J-10 was a stolen Russian fighter. It’s a stolen US one. 😉 Actually Israel sold them Lavi info much of which was created and funded by the US. Without the US’s permission of course.
This is absurd
The J10 has different aerodynamics, is a different plane, the Lavi was basically an F16 airframe with canard/delta configuration.
FBW is designed for aerodynamics and design requirements, they probably got some basics from the lavi’s papers, but that’s all, for such airframe they needed a completely different FBW system, saying is a copy or is actually based on the lavi is a stupid arrogant egocentric and ignorant belief.
The J10 is pretty chinese, still awaiting for it engine though..
The unstable canard-delta was under research by many countries at that time, China, Israel, Europe and the SU, including the USA, getting some papers with unspecific information from other programs does not mean you want to copy them, especially when the result is completely different from the “copied” airframe…
over GIn general Europe never did like such heavy aircrafts, the F104 was a success, while the F4 was not, the F16 was a success, while the F15 was not.
The F35 is a heavy fighter, 13tons is heavy, no matter if it has the fancy stealth that only works with heavy ECM support or with fancy internal bays that decrease the drag and all that yadadada…is heavy, the plane is heavy
While there are some european countries involved in the F35 program, even with some preliminar papers signed, im don’t really think it will be successful, Greece could buy them though.
Users for such “heavy” planes were Germany, and the UK, which got the Typhoon already
The F35B is actually the only version in which i could see some success, but i think many carrier programs are already in stand by, there is no need for such expansionism policy for Europe, no colonies to protect, no Soviet Union, and the relations with China are not that conflictive.
over GTh thread is interesting, but would be more interesting if we could avoid the 29 vs 16 topic, anyway is about the mirage, not the 29…
Would be interesting if someone could post it EM diagram, i have not seen any M2000 diagram
I would not be surprised if the 9gs envelopment is better for the F-16 than on the mirage, the 9gs envelopment ends at 1500m (for the 16), probably the mirage has better 5-3 g envelopment
What about the mission readiness, can you tell us anything about it Aspis?
over GHow so?
Because to be effective for certain missions the comm outpost must be 20km away from the UAV, regardless bandwidth
While a COIN plane can be effective 1000 km away
Let’s analyse the fighter issue
The time delay imposes some limits, ok lets imagine that Boeing put into service an uber robot fighter, it has 2000 km of range…and looks cool on magazines..
But for a full combat readiness and for full real time action it command outpost must be 10km away, on straight line, without repetition…
You see?, you have a great fighter with theoretical great range, but limited because delay time , bandwidth is the average information time, is not the real time
That’s why they are not wasting their time testing this, neither on local perfect com-nets
over GI think because manned planes have a way shorter response time than UAVs
People are blaming bandwidth, if UAVs would be so great, then why there is no design house studying fighter UAVs?, is easy, just fit automated systems on a F-16 and fly it on a local network
Is not about satellites either or bandwidth, there are other ways like airborne control or such
There are delays, not all UAVs are controlled from washignton, lol, i think there are local outposts controlling them what is the real range for certain missions, what is the delay for certain missions, what are the real capabilities?
Can a F15 with the “robot” be fast enough on it responses with a comm outpost 1000 km away?, can be fast enough with a outpost 100 km away?…
Bandwidth is one thing, communication delay is another
over GI would call that patrolling, but for ground support and air strike callings they are still using manned planes, and for the later they definitively are not using UAVs
over GUAVs are not being used for COIN missions, for COIN harriers and A10s are being used (ifi recall correctly), UAVs are being used against fixed targets like buildings or departments on pre-planned missions.
over GI think the USAF preference for light manned COIN planes instead UAVs is telling us the real problems and limitations for remote systems, and i doubt are recon problems or IFF issues.
UAVs are not suited yet for combat missions, just for pre organized attacks over fixed targets, well planned missions that’s all, for the time taken for planning such combat support mission as ground support ones the battle would be over already.
There are not UAV fighter programs, at lest not being taken seriously, not even a single fighter-UAV platform, i doubt the real UAV capabilities to take decisions (even if are remoted controlled) for non planned events
For bombing the things are different, you can take your time planning the mission, is a fixed target and you can get a lot of data from othere sources, but i don’t see a bright future on UAVs for COIN/CAS/fighter/interception missions
Other than that, i don’t expect any real advantage for high performance UAVs, that is an UAV capable as the Harrier/A-10/Su-25, there won’t be weight savings or cost savings
over GWould be great if you stay in the rafale threads…you and your other 10 personalities…seriously
Sign In
