China's new aircraft and no one here talks about it ?

[Derk 265]

'Fagot' .... MIG-15 Fagot

 

 

And 'Flogger' , at least some Fagot's love that..

 

Houdoe,

 

Derk

[DWCAce 19]

I must say that that plane is F'in HUGE!

[SayethWhaaaa 245]

The arse end is very Mig 1.42...

[+Julhelm 266]

Until the Chinese can present a credible mission and sensors package for this that is on par with F-22 or F-35, then this isn't a 5th generation fighter, and frankly, nor is the PAK FA. At most 4.5, in which case they will be matching the capability of the Super Hornet.

 

It's one thing to design an airframe with a bunch of LO features, but it is another to turn it into an operational 5th gen fighter. Why do you think it took 15 years for F-22 to reach full capability and pretty much as long for F-35? Hell, the X-35 demonstrator was flying around back in the late 90's.

 

So color me not worried.

[TheStig 39]

FastCargo, I would be the misinformed one. I just feel that the Raptor is a better product than the Lightning. There is also less red tape with it other than the production cap. The F-35 right now has a huge target on it in Congress again.

[+torno 6,139]

wip :

 

http://combatace.com/topic/52359-pak-fa-por-fin/page__st__80

 

 

 

[macelena 1,070]

wip :

 

http://combatace.com...in/page__st__80

 

 

 

 

AAH i knew the Banidos team had something to do with it

[Atreides 144]

I'll say one thing about it, it's BIG. A lot bigger than an F-22. Maybe bigger than the T-50 which is bigger by the F-22 than a noticeable amoutn. That gives me pause in how good a dogfighter it could be.

It looks like it will fly fast, high, and far, though.

 

 

Looks a bit smaller than the YF-23 though !

[Atreides 144]

Some more

 

 

 

 

Edited December 31, 2010 by Atreides

[Guest rscsjsuso5]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOOHTthSo3E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4UQ9PFE1uY Edited December 31, 2010 by rscsjsuso5

[JediMaster 451]

Hard to say, as the YF-23 was only seen next to the YF-22 IIRC and that's not the same size as the F-22. Of course, a notional F-23A might have been smaller for all we know.

[Atreides 144]

Hopefully this gives a somewhat clearer idea of size.

 

[FastCargo 412]

That's not a fighter, that's a small bomber. I would find it hard to believe it could be a 9G airframe.

 

FC

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

I dunno. F-14 was the best tac fighter of its time, followed by MiG-25. The best fighters in history were beefy, burly, Russian style designs.

 

I'd take F-108 or F-12, updated over 50 years, over any of these post-modern Turn~n~Boyd wannabee super-ninja dogfighters.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

...and Grumman style designs of course.

[Atreides 144]

Keeping in mind what FC said, would'nt the size make sense as the PLAAF require an aircraft with long legs and to carry a respectable payload ? Plus, inflight refuelling ops within the PLAAF is not at par with what the USAF and NATO carry out on a daily basis.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Atreides

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Or they have to make it bigger to carry equivalent equipment that would fit in smaller western designs. Dunno. But everything else equal, I'd go for bigger: power, payload, speed, range, etc...

[JediMaster 451]

My guess is the need to carry a certain payload (mix of AAMs and ASMs/bombs or long-range AAMs) internally dictated certain sized payload bays. They then specified a certain performance for speed/altitude and unrefueled range. Then you have to build a plane around that. A long-range stealthy missile/bomb carrier would quite easily be that size.

[MigBuster 2,884]

I dunno. F-14 was the best tac fighter of its time, followed by MiG-25. The best fighters in history were beefy, burly, Russian style designs.

 

I'd take F-108 or F-12, updated over 50 years, over any of these post-modern Turn~n~Boyd wannabee super-ninja dogfighters.

 

 

Way off - Boyd advocated the use of both energy AND manoeuvrability - not just being agile - All of these platforms can do this - F-22/F-15/F-16/F-18/F-14B&D/MiG-29/Su-27

 

And all of those platforms would take the piss out of the underpowered compressor stalling nightmare that was the F-14A and totally inept MiG-25P/PD - both of which were Interceptors they are NOT even Fighters in my book.

Edited January 3, 2011 by MigBuster

[JediMaster 451]

And they shouldn't be, neither were designed as anything but interceptors. The F-14 merely had a backup gun and an A2G ability that was ignored until the end of its career.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

MiG::

All of these platforms can do this - F-22/F-15/F-16/F-18/F-14B&D/MiG-29/Su-27

 

I said F-108 or F-12 updated over the last 50 years. Realistically, far better would be true 50 year on replacements for these two. Only the F-14B&D -- in its time -- in your Great List can begin to approach the tactical abilities of such an upgrade/replacement.

 

However, I will admit, as State budgets since WW2 have been devoured, to thunderous applause, by exponentially increasing debt, this leaves nations with only tiny Turn~n~Boyd ninja dogfighters with weak payload, no speed, and weaponry for use against "enemies" that are equally crippled in military aviation development.

 

And just to think, back then they did it with slide rules (...mostly...!).

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Jedi::

And they shouldn't be, neither were designed as anything but interceptors...

Same with P-38 Lightning -- strategic interceptor.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Also the F-4, designed as fleet defence interceptor. So it could never become a tactical fighter. ( )

 

 

I would also ignore the F-14's ATG ability because that would be an expensive Sturmovik...as long as A-6s and A-7s were flying around.

[MigBuster 2,884]

MiG::

 

I said F-108 or F-12 updated over the last 50 years. Realistically, far better would be true 50 year on replacements for these two. Only the F-14B&D -- in its time -- in your Great List can begin to approach the tactical abilities of such an upgrade/replacement.

 

However, I will admit, as State budgets since WW2 have been devoured, to thunderous applause, by exponentially increasing debt, this leaves nations with only tiny Turn~n~Boyd ninja dogfighters with weak payload, no speed, and weaponry for use against "enemies" that are equally crippled in military aviation development.

 

And just to think, back then they did it with slide rules (...mostly...!).

 

 

The F-14B/D was useful (would never say it was the best) regarding A-A because it could use speed AND could dogfight when it was not fully loaded. It needed to do this in its time because there was zero guarantee of it picking up enemy jets on radar and actually hitting them with any of its missiles - and needed all of its bases covered.

 

Having read a lot on John Boyd the past year I would have to say the above term is truly ignorant - so heres a nice thread with a real pilots thoughts on that:

 

from http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8478-start-0.html

[+ST0RM 145]

 

Now can we build some more F-22s rather than just capping at 187?!!?!?!

 

F-35s are POS'. The Raptor isn't and is probably the only thing capable of defeating it in a dogfight.

 

What? Are you 13?

 

Yes, let's build more of an aircraft that has a 45% mission capable rate and after 5 years since reaching IOC, still doesn't have a complete A-to-G capablilty. Orbiting at 60K, chucking AMRAAMs at 3rd Gen targets from BVR is one thing, but it's a much different story when the opponent gets in close and can match or outperform your 5th Gen techno-wonder. Getting off the ground and to the fight is the first priority.

 

The Chinese have taken a very interesting approach to their new jet. As was said it's huge. This leads me to think of it less as a fighter, but more of a long range interceptor, like a MiG-31. The nose is large enough to hold a decent sized phased array radar. Just not sure on how well the Chinese have mastered the ability to build powerful, but compact systems. That could have driven the size also.

 

-S