star49Not really, the Soviet Union collapsed.:p 😀
Soviet Union collapse is not in long term interest of US. when u think a little harder.
star49Why spend 5 bil on development if MKIzing is the way to go??? How stupid are you? IAF is correct when it says no more than $ 2bil needs to be spent if finally we are only going to change russian equipment for superior western ones. Anyway I don’t see Pak-Fa going anywhere unless IAF backs it. I would rather see them spend that on Kaveri with snecma and MCA. Currently even MTA seems a non starter.
I highly doubt PAK-FA is dependent on India money.
http://www.royfc.com/acft_news_old_nov1.html#07nov
Schedule for Putting PAK FA Program Fighter into Air Is 2009
According to his information, Russia’s State Arms Program for the Period to 2015 already has provided for the purchase of the PAK FA program’s fighter
star49With 3 external tanks the F-5E has an acceptable range. Likewise the Mirage 2000. They still can carry 4 AAMs in that configuration. Of course, dropping the tanks before combat, doing turning fight and then return home with maybe half internal fuel gets tricky.
(The F-5 has a quite thirsty engine. With a modern turbo-fan (like the Suchoi) it would probably have 20 to 30% more range.)Point is: the range on internal fuel of the Flankers is good, but it is not exclusive. Rafale or Typhoon with drop tanks achieve comparable ranges.
.
what will be left in F-5E to carry after 3 ET?. and i think old M2K cant carry 4 BVR with 3 ET. Flanker can carry both AAM and PGMs in single mission giving more flexibility.
star49the air combats between J-10 and flankers were simulated to be as realistic as possible, with no favourites (reasons have been given on why, people just can’t accept that SAC regards flankers as their own baby now).
Taiwan made a comment in 1997, right, J-10 hadn’t even flown back then. What would they know other than a wild guess?
Flanker is more expensive to build and maitain. Just look at Fuel prices and
no one can take chinese report seriously when u canot built any thing better than mountain eagle.
Taiwan has long history of western connections. they surely knew from very beginning.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1995/11/22/23196/russians-pursue-engine-and-radar-on-chinese-f-10-fighter.html
When Flight International first revealed in 1994 that the F-10 was a Chinese-Israeli collaborative programme, the US State Department announced publicly that it would examine whether Israel was in breach of US export regulations.The US Government had been aware of the programme for several years and tried to get Tel Aviv to drop the project – the Lavi fighter programme having received much of its funding and technology from the USA.
The first pictures of the aircraft are reported to have been taken by US intelligence satellites in 1994, prompting US defence secretary William Perry to make a personal plea earlier this year to recently assassinated Israeli prime minister, Yitzak Rabin to drop the programme – without success.
The prototype of the new fighter is being assembled in a special site at Chengdu Aircraft, in Sichuan. In the late 1980s, at least 20 engineers from Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) were part of the fighter’s design team at Chengdu. IAI also helped with wind tunnel testing in the early design stage. The Israeli presence has been scaled down in the last three years.
The Israeli design and development input in the programme is valued at more than $500 million. Overall programme costs are said to top $5 billion
J-10 was designed to have better supersonic performance than flankers. It can go mach 2.0 even with normal A2A configuration. Flankers can’t do that.
By the time it reaches Mach 2 it will run out of fuel. and it is very doubtful that it is a light fighter.
star49Even in real war it does matter. Using your afterburners will zoom you out of the combat zone instead. Have you ever thought of that? The purpose of the engagement is to fight, not to run.
I called you an idiot because for days now you cannot figure out the proper solution to this problem,when it is that freaking obvious. Instead you go off clearly making up things and fantasies as you go on, which clearly means you know crap.
You simply don’t take off with a full internal load. that’s all. You simply only put in the fuel you need, by calculating carefully the requirements for the mission.
and hou u know the mission requirements for Air intercept role in fight between equal adversaries.(no airsuperiority). I am not talking about one sided war. u maximize the potential of ur air assets in such case with maximu fuel and maximum BVR missiles. thats why Su-35 is designed for 12 Active BVR missiles. and giving it even more fuel. the sam logic applies behind Su-34(4500KM range)
More unrealistic bull from you. This is so stupid it does not deserve a proper response.
simply u dont have answer to that.
Taiwan never knew anything. By the same token the IDF is a miniturized F-16.
Taiwan has been capitalist much before than China and was richer and it has full support of Western and Japanese intelligence.(just imagine how rich was Japan in 80s and ealry 90s). So those countries with boat load of money cannot buy intellegence and technology but dirt poor China can at that time?
And who ever told you they were asking AIM-120 to counter R-27, huh? More idiocy from you. The Taiwanese thought they were fully able to counter the R-27 and even the R-77 with the AMRAAM AIM-120C5, MICA and TK-2 missiles. It was only in the advent of the PL-12 missile that they are forced to actively sought for AIM-120C7, when their own simulations were showing that they are facing a negative balance in terms of casualty kill ratio against aircraft equipped with the PL-12.
Taiwanese thought? AIM-120C5 is decade old technology and for export it is even more downgraded. they better ask for later missiles.
Read the full fight global article.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/08/13/14062/on-the-defensive.html
Gen Huang Hsien-yung, commander-in-chief of the Taiwan air force, has a single, very important task: defend Taiwan from China. “Our strategy is defensive, and the required mission for the air force is to intercept enemy aircraft,” says Huang
Huang took command of the air force in 1995, but continues to maintain his proficiency as a fighter pilot. He is under no illusion about the threat faced by Taiwan. He says that the Chinese army, air force and navy have established the country as a modern air power, having acquired technical aid from Russia and Israel
star49So it is intresting to learn, what the AWACs will do to overcome such known threat. So far more and more AFs do introduce such force-multiplers. The AWACs itself can be a big jammer f.e.
Flanker has IRST of 90KM and againt AWACS size aircraft it should have ground supported radar to give it general location. There is big difference between BVR missile fired from high energy platform like Su-30 and a pathetic platform like F-5/M-2000(read the Taiwanese).
Su-30 has the fuel to outlast group of F-5 in air and than can simulataneouly hit them on ground. AWACS wont make a difference.
star49What a load of crap. Do you go around with a PC logo that says “Idiot Inside”?
What a load of BS. I have never heard of anyone in any airborne tactical exercise trying to deliberately lose fuel by using his afterburners.
In exercises any thing can be setup. But in real war it is different matter.
What a load of bull. Anyone with a J-10 can also afford any ground radar. That ground radar can also be jammed or destroyed by SEAD.
Ground radar can be jammed and destroyed? Ground radar is bigger and more powerful and is more capable if they are of same generation. just because US has been successful in jamming some third world countries radar it does not mean two equal adversaries will face the same situation.
Not the R-27R, only the ER, but the ER’s distance is not proportional to its weight. Inefficient. Even at the edge of its range, the R-27 would be flying so slow and low in energy that it is practically useless, compared to a more aerodynamic missile.
ur just assuming stuff without knowledge to back it up. Taiwan knew even in 1997 that J-10 is Lavi when there is no reported flight. and they were asking form AIM-120 to counter R-27. they knew MICA does not have the range.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1997/08/13/14062/on-the-defensive.html
“Their combat capability has been seriously enhanced. They have new fighters, such as Sukhoi Su-27 Flankers, along with M-series missiles [CSS6/M9 and CSS7/M11] and Dong Feng series missiles [DF-31],” says Huang. China is also developing the new Chengdu F-10, based on Israeli Lavi fighter technology, and, claims Huang, the communist power now poses a grave threat to Taiwan and a potential threat to Asia as a whole.
Huang is now pressing for a similar capability for the F-16s to counter China’s Vympel R-27 (AA-10 Alamo) and future R-77 (AA-12 Adder)-armed Su-27s. “Its combat capability has been upgraded, both in quality, and in quantity, thus posing a grave threat to us,” he says.“Our F-16s must be equipped with advanced medium-range air-to-air missile and advanced air-to-surface missiles,” he says. “We are trying hard to procure these weapons systems.” The air force is asking for the Hughes AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM), which can intercept targets at a greater distance than can either the Mica or Sky Sword II. Huang says that Taiwan requests the AMRAAM at every annual Taiwan/US arms sales conference, but is always refused
star49LOL. The Flanker needs to be about 50 to 60% of its internal fuel to be at the minimum of its proper thrust to weight. Sukhoi recommends 56%. Tell me how you can attain that by losing 10% of your fuel from take off, huh?
Recommendation? and ur not going to fight over the top of airbase.
And the J-10 can dump its external tanks in a jiffy. Instantly. You cannot do the same on a Flanker.
and Flanker can turn on afterburner to go into high speed and altitude into the fight. once u lose fuel tanks u cannot get back them. Flanker can turn off the afterburner
Bull. Smoke is only used for the test demonstration of the missiles in order to create both a spectacle or to make it easier to track for flight tests purposes.
so these are test round missiles?
The J-10’s intake has baffles deliberately designed to prevent radar reflection coming in. The S shaped internal duct prevents this further. The Typhoon and the F-16 does this too. The MiG-21 does not have this, nor the Flanker except for the Su-35 and the J-11B that have newly redesigned counter radar reflective baffles.
it wont make a difference when u have external load out and fuel tanks. and Airforce which can afford Flanke can also afford decent Ground radar. ur non-stealth J-10 cannot hide.
I can say definitely because it is true. The trapezoidal wings on the R-27 is draggy with protruding wing spans and do not sweep backward enough. The R-77, as well as other AAMs like the AMRAAM, are on the right path not to have large draggy fins at the forward section of the missile.
but R-27 have bigger motor and more fuel and being heavier will go considerable distance.
star49No fighter or any plane consumes most of its fuel because of takeoff.
I didnot say most of fuel. 10 to 15% is normal during take off and gaining intial height.
When you carry external weapons your RCS increases, that’s why the F-22 and F-35 uses internal bays. So does F-117 and B-2.
i am comparing two fighters with external weopons and one have external fuel tanks.
LOL there is no video of any J-10 smoking ever. The AL-31F is a smokeless engine.
smoke coming out from those obsolete PL-8 missiles.
Radar paint does not make a Bison a stealth fighter.
neigther do J-10 is stealth fighter.
The R-27R definitely does not have greater range and speed. The R-27ER does but its not proportional to its weight. Unfortunately the R-27 has a draggy fin design and poor aerodynamics.
how u can say definitely?
star49Mass into velocity? what are you taking about Mig 31 have higher sustained or top speed than Su-27?
Crobato is talking about the energy transferred to a missile so a bigger plane certainly won’t give more energy to the missile since mass of missile stays the same. It only the speed of the plane and the mass of the missile that matters here. Basic physics here if you can wrap you brain around it.
MIG-31 has much more speed. Mach 2.4 with missiles and Mach 2.83 clean. engines will make it even faster. and if a truck and car hit at same speed. what will be the end result.
What does smoke have to do with anything? Even it smoke does increae RCS but then again a shot has already been fired. You already have the advantage.
short range missile have much less speed. u have plenty of time to shot it back. it is the obsolete nature of propellent PL-8 that is making so much smoke.
Your opinion or fact? It not a factor according only to you. I’m sure no one who actually work in the military aviation industry think so.
really? All top airforces want twin engine heavy fighters for air superiority. there is no doubt about that.
Trade off between mass and drag. Bid and heavy doesn’t automatically translate to a faster missile.
Man you need much more basic learning to do before you come here blabbering some very basic mistakes.
there is some thing called bigger motor and bigger fuel capacity of larger missiles that over come mass and drag. and once u accelarate to higher speeds it goes even further due to its momentum. A twin engine fighter is not twice draggier than single engine. Similar is the case of missiles.
star49Bigger fighter does not mean more energy to BVR missile. Faster fighter does. And I mean faster fighter at the moment. Heavily fuel loaded Su-27 is not a fast fighter. You need to deplete some of the fuel first.
energy is mass into velocity. read about MIG-31 vs Su-27. and Su-27 consumes most of fuel during takeoff stage. In actual combat it will be no more than 6 to 7 tons. which will give Su-27 greater than 1 TWR.
The J-10 is not a stealth fighter but it does have some RCS reduction measures in the intake and use of radar absorbent paint. Furthermore, it does not expose the engine intakes. The Flanker is not a stealth fighter either, but it is a large RCS fighter, meaning it is that visible to radar, thanks to its engine inlets and exposed engine fan blades from the front.
it is very minor when ur carry external weopons and fuel tanks and u have seen the amount of smoke generated in J-10 promot video from missile firing. and it was wvr missile.
Sukhoi has focused a lot in improving the RCS of the inlet design of the Su-35 and Shenyang likewise on the J-11B. Measures also include adding radar absorbent coating on the front engine intake face. Its not very sure how much is done on the Su-30 however.
radar paint was used on MIG-21Bison during 90s. it is not a factor.
You are referring to the R-27RE and R-27TE. That is extended version, not the base version, which does not have the speed and range of the PL-12. The PLAAF has both missiles and I am pretty sure that was also factored into exercises.
R-27 is heavier missile and it is most likey having greater speed and range than R-77/PL-12 class missile just like semi-active AA-9 Amos.
star49The best anti-stealth radars are the old ones. Stealth has to reduce the firing-radars at first. Stealth is sometimes “satanic”. You can see it come, but you can do nothing about that, because your firing radars are unable to get the lock to that in time. That intruders did not use stealth alone to minimise firing detection, but still have a powerfull EW-suit for support. In the 80s the EW-system of the B-52 were able to defeat the powerfull radar of the MiG-31 with that. That did force the Russian to create a new system for the MiG-31 to overcome that.
Best Radars against stealth are not the old ones. it only came about in 2002-03 period and in future GaNs based AESA.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1129977&highlight=%2Avpk%2A#post1129977
Vpk-news.ru
NNIIRT practically the only company in the world, which designed and developed unique technology development and production of radar-meter wave band that can effectively detect objects constructed using STELS-tehnology. .Among them, the State Prize of Russia in 2002 in the field of science and technology for development, implementation and maintenance of production trehkoordinatnoy meter band radar waves 55ZH6-U with digital array antenna arrays (FAR). в 2003 г.One of the latest developments in the Institute metric wavelength-the world’s first mobile radar detection 1L119 aerodynamic and bad-meter wave band with active FAR taken on in 2003
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1094827&highlight=vpk#post1094827
http://arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=37940&cid=25
Enterprise “Svetlana” fills 70 % of the needs of Russian market for the semiconductorsST. PETERSBURG, on 21 March. (ITAR- TASS). Enterprise “Svetlana” fills 70 % of the needs of Russian market for the semiconductors, reported the director general of company Vladimir Popov before the session VPK.
He also reported that untill 2011 enterprise will make 5-6 thousand semiconductor plates.
Before the Mil.-industrial session the first vice- premier Sergey Ivanov visited the hall of assembling technical equipment for the cultivation of new semiconductor materials. From them in the enterprises “Svetlana” are produced the promising models of the transistors, which, in turn, are used for creating the instruments of optical electronics (light-emitting diodes, lasers) and SHF- instruments.
The models of new nitride-gallium (Ga-Ni) semiconductors were showed to Ivanov. it’s reported that these semiconductors can survive temperature up to 300 C, they have higher, than usual, power and increased EFFICIENCY. Through these models Russia is located on the level of France and Japan and only little it lags behind THE USA, informed Ivanov the director general of “Svetlanas”. In this case, specified Popov, new transistors of this semiconductor withstood the testing by the temperature of 125 Cof more than 1000 h. the first vice- premier it noted that these are very good indices both for the civil and for the military instruments. “for rocket engineering – this it is sufficient. For a missile 30 min is sufficiently guaranteed “, said Ivanov.
The developments of enterprise “Svetlana” will make it possible to significantly decrease the sizes and the mass of the communication systems radars, utilized in the military sphere. With the successful experiences in the next only four years the radars size will be decreased three times
star49Oh, I have no doubt the PAK-FA if and when it materializes will be better than a F-117,, at least I hope so for Russia’s and India’s sakes. I was just alluding to the fact that the US has spent countless $billions in pioneering stealth and have such a big head start. One expert in a TV documentary estimates that the US has spent more on stealth than it did to put a man on the moon. So PAK-FA can fly in maybe a decade or so, it will be a 1st gen product competing against stealth tech that is several generations ahead.. it seems that PAK-FA or other similar stealth platforms are doomed to play catch-up.. no knock on Russian aviation designers.. its just they seem to have a very short stack in a poker game against someone who holds a mountain of chips.. the question is how long can they stay in the game?:D
US developed Stealth during 70s and 80s when radar tech and processing power was very limited compared to 21st century. Now u have AESA and huge net centric system. I am sure they will test PAK-FA against S-400/S-500 type systems and there newest anti-stealth radars.
star49PLA daily would tell you different. Actually, most account of J-10 vs flankers say that flankers simply can’t shake off J-10. And besides, why do you need to carry 6 BVR missiles when 2 is enough to shoot the other guy down? Radar is bigger, but the tracking range of J-10 is greater than that of MKK. TWR of flanker is not better. For J-10 with WS-10A, it’s 13.5 tonne/11 tonne.
Even J-8F right now has better TW ratio than su-27.I deliberately deleted my original post, because I didn’t feel like extending this into a long argument. Thank you very much.
J-10 is not a Stealth fighter that Flanker cannot see it from considerable distance and adjust itselft into favorable position to enter into a dog fight. Bigger fighter gives more energy to BVR missile. 6 BVR are good in case u want to shoot down 3 light fighters. Tracking range of J-10? how much difference. barely a few kms at all. which have no effect on outcome.
Now WS-10A becomes 13.5 tonnes. Previously it was in 13.2 ton category and is there any operational squaradon J-10 with WS-10A. and J-10F TWR is better than Su-27?. It seems u have opened rumurs/speculation factory.
Why does J-10 need Meteor or python v to beat earlier mig-29s and su-27s? Those 27sk we got can’t even fire R-77. They can’t even beat PL-12 equipped J-8F.
Su-27 still hase R-27 that has greater speed and range than PL-12. Active BVR does not matter if ur in 1 vs 1 comparision. and there is 40KM version of R-73 with 120 degree offboresight.
star49Well what’s more stupid when you’re the one that’s wrong? Read’em and weep!
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/news/2005/q1/nr_050128g.html
this press release does not say that letter 8 was added because of Chinese order. It is continuation of series.
Originally Posted by tphuang
not as significant as you might think. You actually don’t know what the latest seekers China has. For example, latest PL-8B has been mentionned as using IIR seekerPython 5 is a better missile than PL-9C/PL-8B, I will give you that.
F-16 needs to lock on to J-10 before vice versa. Considering how much less agile C/D is compared to the earlier variants, that’s not going to happen very often.
J-10 wins almost all dogfights against flankers. How well do you think F-15/16s will do against flankers? That’s how maneuverable it is.
AIM-120C, sure. Derby? SD-10 and PL-12 have much more energy, longer range and such
J-10 cannot beat Flanker in 1 vs 1 fight. Flanker is not MIG-21. It has generous fuel capacitiy to engage afterburner. And Flanker carry more load out of BVR and WVR missiles so it can fire more missiles in BVR fight and can enter dog fight in favourable position. another is Radar bigger FOV and IRST advantage for silent attack aganist non stealthy fighter like J-10. even simple TWR of flanker is better with non-afterburning thrust. Knaapo put Su-27 range at 3530KM vs 3000KM for heavier Su-30MK.
Sign In
