how come over 4 tons fuel for F-16 with CFT and now that 600 gallons wing tanks not excessive for advance F-16.
F-16/Rafale carries external fuel tanks in almost all the pictures. it does not mean they use it for mission. nor any airforce can afford this much fuel for every training sortie.
80KN non-afterburning thrust is the same as total thrust of Gripen which has 14tons of MTOW. NTOW of J-10 around 14 tons is not excessive.
my point is that neither you nor I can prove that the russians dont subscribe to the concept of supercruise !! Atleast on face value they do subscribe to it as is evident from the PAKFA . That leaves the other dominant 4.5,5th gen force and that is the Europeans who also subscribe to the concept of Supercruise . That makes 3 out of 3 of the top aviation industries and Military structures of the world and leaves only you on the other side of the fence đ
Supercruise is more of byproduct of powerful engines in non-afterburning thrust and efficient aerodynamics. it is not an objective. u can see how much armour they put on Su-34 and that is the only new fighter they budgeted untill 2015. and u need Supercruise for bomber which carry heavier air to ground weopons. for fighter with multiple racks for lighter AAMs and external fuel tanks can compensate for supercruise.
two M-88 are around 1800KG vs 1500KG for AL-31 but two engines will require more space and components.
and 8 tons is not un reasonable. even F404 powered Gripen can do 5.3 tons. and M2K/F-16/Rafale are in 7 to 10 ton class. Flanker external load is less because of massive internal fuel.
I wonder no one has posted any thing about this system. they now claim passive attack ability with S-300 missiles independent of radar locations.
Russia fielding metric-wave anti-stealth radar.(EUROPEAN REPORT). Jerzy Gruszczynski.
Journal of Electronic Defense 27.3 (March 2004): p21(1).
Along with the S-400, the 55Zh6-1 Nebo-U radar sets are also to be fielded this year. The radar was developed by NNIIRT [Nizhnonovgorod’s Rsearch and Development Institute of Radio Technology] (Nizhny Novgorod, Russia) and has the distinction of probably being the only radar in the world with a digital phased-array antenna that works in the metric-wave band. The radar has one horizontal and one vertical antenna of large size and deeply modified Yagi-type aerials. The radar’s range is up to 600 km for targets flying between 40-75,000 m, 400 km for targets at 20,000 m, 300 km for targets at 10,000 m, and at least 65 km for targets flying at 500 m. Despite its metric wavelength, the achieved resolution is high, reportedly 400 m in distance and 0.4 degress in azimuth. The radar can rotate at speeds of 10 rpm or 20 rpm to provide 360-degree coverage. Due to its large antennas and complexity, the radar requires seven heavy trucks and trailers to transport it, and its deployment time is 22 hours. The Nebo-U radar sets are being manufactured by AOA Nitel Company (Nizhny Novogrod, Russia), which already has produced of small batch of pre-series sets.
The radar’s ability to operate accurately in the metric band makes it capable of capable of detecting and tracking stealth-type targets without a major reduction in the radar’s range. Metric radar’s main shortcoming had been its low accuracy, making them unsuitable not only for weapon control but even for precise ground-controlled intercept. The Nebo-U enables precise ground control of interceptor aircraft, with an accuracy of 1-2 km. This is theoretically fair enough for an interceptor to make visual contact with a stealth aircraft, such as a US F-117A (shown here), and shoot it down with gunfire, at least in clear daylight or on moonlit nights. Historically, dark nights have been preferable for stealth operations. Nevertheless, the Nebo-U is an interesting technological achievement and is one of a kind among radar systems currently deployed. It will be interesting to see where this technology leads.-with Jerzy Gruszczynski
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/forum/messages/4815.html
[Correspondent Yuriy Chukhin] This is the biggest exhibition of radioelectronic technology ever held in Russia
… [at] Nizhniy Novgorod…
[Vladimir Simonov, captioned as general director of the Russian Control Systems Agency, speaking at the opening ceremony] This is an unusual exhibition, because dual-purpose technology is being shown here for the first time, both military systems and their analogues adapted for civilian needs.
[Correspondent] Many items presented at the exhibition exist in a sole copy, like this radar known as Nebo-SVU and made in Nizhniy Novgorod. A heavy radar station is deployed and made ready for work in 30 minutes.
[Igor Krylov, captioned as senior researcher of the Nizhniy Novgorod Radiotechnical Institute] We are now in the control cabin of a radar station. You see two planes here [on a monitor]. They are at a distance of 200 km. The station can trace up to 200 targets at one moment and process the data automatically.
[Correspondent] The scientists proudly say that their radar can trace even the famous US Stealth fighter-bomber.
[Krylov] We can see the Stealth as clearly as any other plane.
…
Source: Russian Public TV (ORT), Moscow, in Russian 1100 gmt 3 Apr 02
star49 wrote:
There’s nothing in that quote of yours about SMT. Since when regular maintenance of engines means a wish for SMT upgrade?
where is said that this article relates to wish. again where is ur range advantage of F-14/F-4/Su-24 in some useful mission. these aircraft have limited upgrade potentiol interms of engine and internal fuel.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2003/11/25/174246/Iran+seeks+Russian+air+defence+.html
It is also said to be interested in upgrading its Sukhoi Su-24MK strike aircraft to extend their night attack capability and converting its MiG-29 air-defence fighters to the MiG-29SMT multirole variant
I think the specification looks reasonable. compare length of AL-31 vs M-88. and J-10 nose looks bigger than rafale. even the height is more.(some one should post pictures for comparision)
only thing unknown is wing area and width. and weight should be around 10 tons assuming it is not using advance weight saving materials. (smaller F-16 is now approaching 9 tons)
and if every thing else is looks reasonable so there is no reason that it should not carry as much internal fuel as Rafale. so both are pretty close.
RD-93 has been used in Mig-29 for the last two decades, and is probably more trouble prone than AL-31.
yes before 1991 RD series was more trouble prone. but there is no evidence that new built in 90s are trouble prone.
It is not confirmed, if a better version of this engine (smokeless) exists, as Mig-29 itself has’nt been much of an export success.
Better engine does exist. they chose 2000hr engine for FC-1 at approx same price as 3000hr AL-31 that Salyut is supplying to China.
Flight International (May 23, 2006):
Klimov is focusing on upgrade and development of the MiG-29’s RD-33 engine and the RD-93 for single-engined fighters, including China’s FC-10 Thunder. In April 2005 RSK MiG won a Chinese order for 100 RD-93s worth $270 million, with options for 400. During the year Klimov prepared and shipped two engines for FC-1 flight tests. It is also working on increasing the time between overhauls beyond 600h.A major deal is being negotiated with India on local facilities for production and upgrade of the RD-33 for India’s new and refurbished MiG-29s. It is considering replacing 18,300lb-thrust RD-33 series 1 and 2 engines powering in-service MiG-29s with longer-lifetime Series 3 engines. The first set of RD-33MKs has been assembled in preparation for the imminent first flight of the Indian navy’s MiG-29K.
The current production engine has a time between overhauls of 1,000h and total life of 4,000h and develops 19,400lb thrust. It features a wider-chord fan with 6% increased airflow, a new “multi-sectional” smokeless combustor and three-dimensional air flow in the turbine section.
The MiG-29OVT with Klimov’s vectored thrust (KliVT) swivel nozzle system is in flight tests. The engine is targeted at future MiG-29 versions and has already found application on the MMPP Salyut-developed AL-31FN(2) version of the NPO Saturn AL-31F engine
it is possible they just sold the technology in all those years since they have been involved in all those years. and back than it was big money per year for that plant.
Itar-Tass Jul 18, 2001
V O L G O G R A D — Chinese President Jiang Zemin, who is currently here on a familiarisation trip, is to tour the landmarks of the Hero City on the Volga on Wednesday. He will visit the Mamayev Hill and the Battle of Stalingrad panorama museum. Mr Jiang said the main purpose of his trip here is to honour the memory of the Soviet servicemen who gave their lives in the Battle of Stalingrad. It is expected that military- technical cooperation between Russia and China may be one of subjects of the Chinese President’s talks to be held here. It is not ruled out that later in the day Mr Jiang will visit the Volgograd-based Barrikada defence plant which delivers launchers to China for the Shtil anti-aircraft missile systems. This plant has been cooperating with the People’s Republic of China since 1996, a regional administration official has told Itar-Tass. It is a question of deliveries running at 10-15 million dollars a year. Mr Jiang’s trip to Volgograd may result in an increase in the scope of purchases of the plant’s output by the Chinese side. Analysts also note the fact that the Chinese President is being accompanied in the trip to Volgograd by Russian Vice-Premier Ilya Klebanov who is in charge of the defence sector.
Thanks for the answer but perhaps I did not worded my question clearly. I am fully aware of the fact that WS-10A is too big for FC-1.
FC-1 is almost F-16A size aircraft. so it is WS-10A is not too big for FC-1 unless WS-10 is even bigger than F-100/AL-31.
My point was that, China has developed WS-10A for it’s J-11/J-10. Furthermore, it is known that although it is in AL-31 class, it has been developed more along “western” lines, has probably better TWR and has definitely better MTBF.
I dont see a point of introducing another engine aircraft if WS-10 is ready they should put it in FC-1. why go to third party with all export restrictions and foreign exchange involved and later re-engine it with indigenous engine.
when u can start with domestice engine from the begining
and it will make aircraft attractive to PLAAF also because of engine commanality ..
Is any such information available for WS-13, which will eventually power FC-1. The Russian RD-93, while having good immunity to disturbed air-flow, supposedly suffers from a high failure rate and is smokey.
how many FC-1 have been crashed or flight tests postponed due to RD-93. it has been 3 years of extensive flight testing. and it is definitely smokey because smokless version hasnt been ordered.
Never heard about such a wish of the IRIAF, but the SMT (or M or OVT or whatever MiG-29) is just too short-ranged for a country the size of Iran
so F-14/F-4/Su-24 are not short ranged on internal fuel for country size of Iran. there was some thing in Nov 2003 Flight magazine about SMT wish.
Experts of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Air Force have managed to manufacture a chamber [Persian: mahfazeh] for testing engines of MiG-29 aircraft. The chamber was successfully tested at the Tabriz 2nd fighter base in the presence of Air Force chief [Brig-Gen Seyyed Reza Pardis].
During the ceremony, a Mig-29 aircraft following the overhaul of its engine at the Tabriz air base, took to the air.
Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1, Tehran, in Persian 1630 gmt 1 Sep 03
Did you know that up to 4 or 5 million people may have died in Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. in the sixties and seventies; while up to 1.3 million Afghans died during the war there in the 1980s, they might still be alive if it wasnât for the intervention of the Soviet Union or the USA in their countries. Thatâs a pretty possible âwhat ifâ if you ask me
again your making mistake of comparing the two intervention as similar. IF Soviet Union hadnt intervened in Afghanistan. those afghans would have died anyway but much more harm would have been done by spreading of that backward ideology to neiboring countries and ensuring civil wars. they have exposed what was already present. Now u never hear about NATO complaining about Uzbekistan, turkmen or Tajikistan infiltration or even North Afghanistan because those are relatively clean because of that Soviet effort.
Soviets were strategic in chosing friends and foes.
Strange logic to stay polite. To “discredit” an ideology as a larger objective?!
The system in the SU did not survive its related war for long, when the USA did and does still to day.
but the resistence in the name islam didnot succeed either. infact surrounding countries took an object lesson from it never to follow it nor they followed democracy.
In both cases they were forced to leave and in both cases the supported governments were toppled afterwards. Nothing difficult to understand about that.
the anology is not that simple. they werent forced to withdraw they had left sufficiently strong government left behind.
Just because governments are toppled afterwards it does not mean that larger objectives were not achieved. which was to discredit an ideology.
There are no “ifs” in real life. Even before Afghanistan, the SU and the WP were in serious economic troubles related to the system. Afghanistan “served” as an accellerator in some way.
If u understood the question u would not have given this kind of answer. i only ask about the result of particular wars in terms of objectives achieved. nothing to do with economics.
You might think itâs a big myth, but the fact was, many people around the world as well as in the former Soviet Union regarded their war in Afghanistan as a failure, in much the same way that people in the USA as well as every were else regarded the Americansâ war in SE Asia as a failure also, the only difference being of course, the Soviet Union disappeared as a political entity 2 years after withdrawing from itâs war while the USA remains in existence to this day.
In the end itâs a battle for hearts and minds and if the general consensus is that your army is loosing – well then youâre loosing. This applies as much for the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq today as much as it did for the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam
what would have happened if US didnot went to Vietnam and Soviet had not invaded afghanistan?