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

[+Gepard 10,256]

If the J-20 becomes a real service plane, then the Chinese have overtaken Europe for the first time in the development of military planes. Its a potential dangerous development.

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

The next Eurofighter is "Made in China"

[JediMaster 451]

There are already Airbus A320's that are...

[Slartibartfast 153]

Saying that there is a report that the Raptor was between by the Eurofighter in WVR dogfighting... This is a quote from International Air Power :-

 

"more recently, there have been repeated reports that two RAF Typhoons deployed to the USA for OEU trails work have been flying against the F-22 at NAS China Lake, and have peformed better than was expected. There was little suprise that Typhoon, with its world-class agility and high off-boresight missile capability was able to dominate "Within Visual Range" flight, but the aircraft did cause a suprise by getting a radar lock on the F22 at a suprisingly long range. The F-22s cried off, claiming that they were "unstealthed" anyway, although the next day´s scheduled two vs. two BWR engagement was canceled, and "the USAF decided they didn´t want to play any more .

 

- When this incident was reported on a website frequented by front-line RAF aircrew a senior RAF officer urged an end to the converstaion on security grounds"

[+76.IAP-Blackbird 3,545]

Mh Eurofighter = Raptorkiller!

 

I like it

[Toryu 156]

If the J-20 becomes a real service plane, then the Chinese have overtaken Europe for the first time in the development of military planes.

 

Why would that be?

 

Europe is an agglomeration of friendly states, with no valuable threat luring in.

There is just no need for developping a tech-arsed fighter to win a fight that never comes up.

 

Unless you want to invade some country every once in a while, sealth is just a useless performance-killer.

[+Dave 2,318]

Looks like an F-22 and F-35 had a baby.....sheesh that is fugly.....

[Skyviper 1,101]

Did they use lead based paint when they painted that thing?

 

 

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

STORM::

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.

Yeap. Maybe they needed the size to provide western equivalent systems, or maybe not. I do LOVE the size of this Chinese jet thingy. Breaking the mold....maybe.

 

 

THANKS MiG for the link. Looks interesting. This poast *snip* sums it up for me.

 

bruant328 (I think, the format is messed up a bit)::

:

The Viper was added to provide a lower-cost jet than the Eagle that could have a decent air-to-mud capability and a decent air-to-air capability.

:

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

 

I would have loved to see USAF have some F-5As and Es in regular service as backups to F-4s, like say as return escorts, or deployment to where F-4s were not needed -- or whatever -- they were fine light planes (but I think overly vulnerable against N-V AA ???). As for Boyd, he seems like a fine man, and I never read up on him much, but I see what *seems* like fans advocating aircraft similar in spirit to Ki-43 and A6M2. I mean, NAVY had all this sewn up long before Boyd with stuff like (for example) Thatch Weave and Loose Deuce -- team work. As for Air Force, Claire Chennault is TEH MAN, then and now.

 

 

The first time I saw "OODA Loop," I thought it was some obsolete Fortran 66 programming statement.

[Toryu 156]

The US did have a far more capable lightweight-fighter than the F-5 (even before that term was invented!) - the F-104.

 

It outperformed the F-4 in many missions, but that was propably it's fault, so it had to go away...

Edited January 6, 2011 by Toryu

[MigBuster 2,861]

The US did have a far more capable lightweight-fighter than the F-5 (even before that term was invented!) - the F-104.

 

It outperformed the F-4 in many missions, but that was propably it's fault, so it had to go away...

 

Although lightweight the F-5 and F-104 are not really comparible fighters - which is why I believe it was mentioned by Lexx above.

 

The F-104 like the F-4 relies on energy only and its best manoeuvrability comes at high speed - (say 450+kts) for example

 

The F-5A had comparible horizontal turn performance to the MiG-17 in the low speed (say under 400kts) - but I dont believe it was really an energy fighter - especially if compared to the F-104

 

(theres a great article by Andy Bush on F-104Gs Vs F-5Es from when he was at Top Gun)

 

 

The F-5A had no radar- the F-5E was larger, faster, had a radar and was a true A-A fighter - pretty sure neither could get near the F-104/F-4/F-15/F-16 regarding energy and speed performance (thats why they tried to do an F-5G/F-20).

Edited January 6, 2011 by MigBuster

[Toryu 156]

Acc to Andy Bush, the F-5E (with auto-flaps) is a very close representation of the MiG-21F's energy-envelope.

 

I seriously doubt the F-5A will go anywhere near the MiG-17 in terms of turning. At 400kts maybe - but at that speed the MiG can merely fly straigt due to it's lacking hydraulic-system.

There's no chance an F-5A will turn with a MiG-17 at 250kts and below.

 

The point about the 104 is it being rated best ACM-platform of the entire US inventory during the 60s (Project Featherduster).

 

 

Imagine they built the 319FIS' 104A-birds ("G"-flaps, "S"-engine) in actual production.

That thing was a world-beather.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Hey good thinking MiGB, I didn't think of F-104 as it didn't fit what I was thinking. Was thinking more like F-5 would be a handy dandy inexpensive fighter "presence" to have around, in less demanding situations, well supposedly you know how that goes. Mostly, it was simply inexpensive and not hard core like F-104 but I'll have to think again about that. Thanks.

 

Everything in history tells me bigger is generally better if you had only *one* choice of either "heavy" or "small" but not both. SPAD, SE-5, P-47, P-38, P-51, F-4, F-14, MiG-25, J-20 hehe well maybe....! I think about that one engagement where F-15s couldn't catch Foxbats in Iraq. I try to imagine MiG-25 flown by NAVY with air refueling from land bases and how THEY would have used its good points and avoided its bad points to clear the skies. I think I recall the Israelis used some deception tactics to down some MiG-25s, or am I making that up? When the Shah's or Ayotollah's F-14s took off, MiG-25s either didn't fly or they came tumbling down. No deception tactics needed there with F-14.

[+Gunrunner 313]

Lexx, you do realize that the "fear" of Iranian F-14 by Iraqi pilots had more to do with the AIM-54 capability than the airframe/radar performance itself, right ?

[+Kulbit80 1,399]

Found this:

 

Specifications for the Chengdu J-20 (Black Eagle)

 

Dimensions:

Length: 75.46ft (23m)

Width: 49.21ft (15.00m)

Height: 16.40ft (5.00m)

 

Performance: (About MACH)

Maximum Speed: 1,305mph (2,100kmh; 1,134kts)

Maximum Range: 2,113miles (3,400km)

Rate-of-Climb: 60,000ft/min (18,288m/min)

Service Ceiling: 59,055ft (18,000m; 11.2miles)

 

Armament Suite:

Use of various Russian/Chinese air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, anti-radiation missiles, laser-guided bombs and conventional drop bombs are assumed. A standard internal cannon for close-in combat is probable.

Structure:

Accommodation: 1

Hardpoints: 8

Empty Weight:38,801lbs (17,600kg)

Maximum Take-Off Weight:77,162lbs (35,000kg)

 

Powerplant:

Engine(s): CURRENT (estimated): 2 x Saturn 117S turbofan engines delivering 32,000lbs of thrust each; INTENDED: 2 x WS-10/WS-17 turbofan engines of 30,000lbs thrust each.

 

 

www.militaryfactory.com

[+Gepard 10,256]

Found this:

 

Specifications for the Chengdu J-20 (Black Eagle)

 

Dimensions:

Length: 75.46ft (23m)

Width: 49.21ft (15.00m)

Height: 16.40ft (5.00m)

 

Performance: (About MACH)

Maximum Speed: 1,305mph (2,100kmh; 1,134kts)

Maximum Range: 2,113miles (3,400km)

Rate-of-Climb: 60,000ft/min (18,288m/min)

Service Ceiling: 59,055ft (18,000m; 11.2miles)

 

Armament Suite:

Use of various Russian/Chinese air-to-air missiles, air-to-surface missiles, anti-radiation missiles, laser-guided bombs and conventional drop bombs are assumed. A standard internal cannon for close-in combat is probable.

Structure:

Accommodation: 1

Hardpoints: 8

Empty Weight:38,801lbs (17,600kg)

Maximum Take-Off Weight:77,162lbs (35,000kg)

 

Powerplant:

Engine(s): CURRENT (estimated): 2 x Saturn 117S turbofan engines delivering 32,000lbs of thrust each; INTENDED: 2 x WS-10/WS-17 turbofan engines of 30,000lbs thrust each.

 

 

Ehm, sorry. But the only know things are some pictures taken during ground tests. How can someone really know the weight of this bird? It has not flown yet. How can someone seriously say someting about speed, climbrate, range etc?

This is hokus pokus.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Acc to Andy Bush, the F-5E (with auto-flaps) is a very close representation of the MiG-21F's energy-envelope.

 

I seriously doubt the F-5A will go anywhere near the MiG-17 in terms of turning. At 400kts maybe - but at that speed the MiG can merely fly straigt due to it's lacking hydraulic-system.

There's no chance an F-5A will turn with a MiG-17 at 250kts and below.

 

 

If you see here which is the Have Drill/Ferry pres: http://area51specialprojects.com/video/havedrill_tactical.swf

click to go through the presentation - its compared at 350KIAS and 450 KIAS (me not checking!). If you have anything on the 250KIAS then Id be pleased to see it - the MiG-17s wings are still swept back so having a serious doubt is not good enough.

 

The MiG-17 did have a hydraulic system - but early versions did not have powered Ailerons from what I remember - hence why it had to fly in a straight line over a certain speed. But GRViper has provided information from manuals from Soviet MiG-17Fs having all powered flight controls from a point in time.

 

The point about the 104 is it being rated best ACM-platform of the entire US inventory during the 60s (Project Featherduster).

 

 

Unfortunately the range and weapons load of the F-104 made the F-4 (with better avionics and extra set of eyes) far more suitable for their needs - as pretty much proved over SEA itself - and probably a major factor in the USAF ditching the F-104 from that conflict and from service rather quickly.

Edited January 7, 2011 by MigBuster

[Guest rscsjsuso5]

more info on j-20 , takeoff is beautiful with drag chute http://china-defense.blogspot.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 , and again i'm proud of my air force the plaaf , it is a great leap forward from j-11flanker to 5th gen.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Lexx, you do realize that the "fear" of Iranian F-14 by Iraqi pilots had more to do with the AIM-54 capability than the airframe/radar performance itself, right ?

 

Not too sure on that - this might be more true of the 1991 conflict after the 1980-1988 experience with Iran.

 

Based on Tom Coopers research the F-14s used every weapon available to them (he lists most weapons kills)and had to merge on many occasions. In his accounts taken from pilot interviews you would have to conclude that only the MiG-25s knew they were being fired at (they turned around when locked up). The F-14 could pick up a target and fire - which highlights the importance of SigInt -you dont have much chance if you don't know its coming.

[MigBuster 2,861]

I think about that one engagement where F-15s couldn't catch Foxbats in Iraq.

This is useful if the Foxbats are going after a target - but not so great in this case - were they running for Iran?

 

 

I think I recall the Israelis used some deception tactics to down some MiG-25s, or am I making that up? When the Shah's or Ayotollah's F-14s took off, MiG-25s either didn't fly or they came tumbling down. No deception tactics needed there with F-14.

 

Israel claim a few MiG-25 fighters which were lower level and seem to be head on type shots. It was the R version flying high they couldnt get - but they claim to have damaged one with a Hawk which was placed on a mountain under the usual flight path. An F-15 could then shoot it down.

By accounts the F-14 was successful in stopping MiG-25R overflights - they had no counter apart from turning and out running the missile shot it seems.

Edited January 7, 2011 by MigBuster

[MigBuster 2,861]

more info on j-20 , takeoff is beautiful with drag chute http://china-defense.blogspot.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 , and again i'm proud of my air force the plaaf , it is a great leap forward from j-11flanker to 5th gen.

 

 

 

At last - real life action -

 

 

great find

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=53d_1294436432

 

 

 

 

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Gun::

Lexx, you do realize that the "fear" of Iranian F-14 by Iraqi pilots had more to do with the AIM-54 capability than the airframe/radar performance itself, right ?

Its was all one package, F-14 and its weapons system, they kinda go together, like Barbie and Ken.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Gepard::

How can someone seriously say something about speed, climbrate, range etc?

I don't know who published those numbers, but, the souls who know how to build airplanes usually get pretty close to the numbers they are building for.

 

And they used to do it with slide rules!

[Toryu 156]

MiGB, the 104 doesn't have any shorter legs than the F-4; he contrary is rather true. In SEA, it was mainly used as Escort for either EC-121 or Wild-Weasel assets, where it never lost a protegée - other missions included CAS and MiGCAP. Both missions were fulifilled to the fullest.

The in-comission-rate was at around 98% (not quite bad for such an oddball on the flightline).

 

The 104 was killed by USAF-politics, not by performance or ability.

 

 

Speaking of the MiG-17:

 

Controllability issues include:

 

- very high stick-forces above 450KIAS or M.85 - resulting very slow roll-rates and pitch-authority

- Dutch-Roll tendency above 375KIAS and generally poor yaw-stability in turbulent air

 

the MiG-17s wings are still swept back so having a serious doubt is not good enough.

 

The MiG has a better lift-coefficient and more wing-area than the F-5, combined with a higher aspect-ratio.

I'm not quite sure if the F-5A has automatic leading-edge flaps, though.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Toryu