Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Wraith27

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Jeez - where did you get that from??:

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_9.html

 

Figures I have

F-104C with full external fuel (4 drop tanks) Range = 1500 miles

F-4E with full external fuel (3 drop tanks) Range = 1885 miles

 

Now in a real life Tactical scenario the F-4 could carry external drop tanks and still maintain a good A-A and A-G loadout - something the F-104C could never do. It seems to have been restricted to 2 AIM-9s on the wingtips only because the AIM-9 seeker heads got damaged if they were carried under the fuselage.

The F-4 also had the advantage of the WSO and when the AIM-7s got better another way to fight. Point being the F-104 weps loadout with or without tanks was hopeless.

 

In regards to ACM they were actually pretty similar - to quote Andy Bush:

 

Having flown both the F-4 and the F-104, I would tend to favor the F-4 in a turning fight...partly because of its better turn below 400KIAS and partly because of its two man crew. Other than that, the two jets shared many similarities.

 

(Note he is talking about the F-104G and F-4E (non-slatted) at Top Gun)

 

 

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

 

 

Err yes thats what I said above - with high stick forces it becomes harder to move non powered ailerons! - some MiG-17s had powered ailerons so this analysis may not have applied to all MiG-17s in service.

 

 

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.

 

Only thing to do would be to get some charts on the MiG-17F and F-5A and compare - if possible.

Edited by MigBuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez - where did you get that from??:

 

From somebody who actually flew both, the Rhino and the 104:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Ruminations%20on%20the%20F-104.htm

 

The other source would of course be the venerable Tom "Sharkbait" Delashaw, who flew the 104 in SEA, made record-intercepts and finally flew for the "Starfighters" Demo-Team before being killed in a Hunter-crash:

http://web.tiscali.it/F104-Starfighter/Zip.htm

 

F-104C with full external fuel (4 drop tanks) Range = 1500 miles

F-4E with full external fuel (3 drop tanks) Range = 1885 miles

 

That's quite generic - it never states the profile/ altitude, nor does it specify the speeds.

The 104's range-superriority comes in the L-L-L arena. The 104 also had a signifigently higher cruise speed - a reason why 104s were favoured by Wild-Weasels (Thuds), because they were a lot closer to their cruise than the Phantoms.

 

The AIM-7 armament proved close to useless in Vietnam as it would a) malfunction b) be too fiddly to employ in a quick squeeze-off c) seldomly (read: almost never) conditions actually favoured a 20NM Sparrow head-on engagement.

Neither were the crews correctly taught in using the Sparrow at first, nor did the missile perform up to specs.

Airplanes not being cleared for a BVR-shot in the first place was another Sparrow show-stopper.

There just weren' enough "Combat Tree" IFF-boxes around to allow the widespread use of the Sparrow's standoff-capability.

 

The 104 of course always had a gun for self-defense - an option which only came into play for the F-4 community in 1968.

The 104 hardly needed the Sidewinder to defend themselves. BTW: the seekers being damaged was the lesser evil: the catamaran-rail on the lower fuselage had a bad impact on yaw-stability - that's why it usually was kept off the planes.

 

What Andy Bush doesn't tell you is that the 104 does have the better options in the vertical than the F-4.

The second seat is a useful asset, but it isn't neccessarily needed when doing ACM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From somebody who actually flew both, the Rhino and the 104:

http://www.916-starfighter.de/Ruminations%20on%20the%20F-104.htm

 

The other source would of course be the venerable Tom "Sharkbait" Delashaw, who flew the 104 in SEA, made record-intercepts and finally flew for the "Starfighters" Demo-Team before being killed in a Hunter-crash:

http://web.tiscali.it/F104-Starfighter/Zip.htm

 

 

I have got both articles thanks - that doesnt change one thing that I have said. You will notice that Walt seems to be comparing the F-104A with the J79-GE-19 which was a far better performer than the F-104G Andy flew and the F-104C used in SEA. However it still unsuitable for SEA IMO for the reasons I have already mentioned!

 

 

That's quite generic - it never states the profile/ altitude, nor does it specify the speeds.

The 104's range-superriority comes in the L-L-L arena. The 104 also had a signifigently higher cruise speed - a reason why 104s were favoured by Wild-Weasels (Thuds), because they were a lot closer to their cruise than the Phantoms.

 

Yes you are right - I should have been more specific - however Walt mentions the LLL profile as you have stated because I think they were training to drop Nukes (1 nuke on the centreline and 4 tanks). The SEA profile seems to have been HHH with A-A refueling - the F-104 like any jet will go much further doing HHH - but again part of what I was saying that you have missed is that the F-4 can carry more fuel and still maintain a decent loadout thus always wins for this scenario. You needed a good A-G loadout to hit targets back then.

 

 

The AIM-7 armament proved close to useless in Vietnam as it would a) malfunction b) be too fiddly to employ in a quick squeeze-off c) seldomly (read: almost never) conditions actually favoured a 20NM Sparrow head-on engagement.

Neither were the crews correctly taught in using the Sparrow at first, nor did the missile perform up to specs.

Airplanes not being cleared for a BVR-shot in the first place was another Sparrow show-stopper.

There just weren' enough "Combat Tree" IFF-boxes around to allow the widespread use of the Sparrow's standoff-capability.

 

 

Some of that applies but as I said before as the AIM-7 got better it became a good option. Firstly the WSO was there to sort out the radar and help employ the AIM-7 - just something the F-104 could not do.

the AIM-9 was easier to employ yes - but both had appalling hit rates overall - maybe as a bad as 10 - 15% so the missiles were bad we all know that.

 

However - a breakdown of actual kills with USAF F-4s in 1966-68:

 

AIM-9B = 21

AIM-7D = 2

AIM-7E = 18

Gunpod = 10

AIM-4D = 5

 

 

and 1972:

 

AIM-7E = 15

AIM-7E-2 = 14

AIM-9E = 6

AIM-9J = 3

M61A1 = 6

 

and what I said is true - the AIM-7 was still a useful option the F-104 didnt have - end of!!

 

 

 

 

The 104 of course always had a gun for self-defense - an option which only came into play for the F-4 community in 1968.

The 104 hardly needed the Sidewinder to defend themselves. BTW: the seekers being damaged was the lesser evil: the catamaran-rail on the lower fuselage had a bad impact on yaw-stability - that's why it usually was kept off the planes.

 

Yes in theory - and no doubt in ACM - but in real life their combat record over SEA says it all - the F-4 was more useful in more areas - the F-104 was a good energy fighter - but when it got to prove it they lost to MiG-19s.

I have a very hard time believing the NVAF were actually deterred by the F-104 - this seems to be VERY wishful thinking. In Istvan Toperczers research on the NVAF he doesnt mention that if the enemy jet was ID's as an F-104 they had to turn and run for their lives!

 

 

What Andy Bush doesn't tell you is that the 104 does have the better options in the vertical than the F-4.

The second seat is a useful asset, but it isn't neccessarily needed when doing ACM.

 

Again this depends on the versions you are comparing - and probably needs EM charts. No Doubt the F-104A-19 had an advantage over all the F-4s, but the F-104C Vs F-4D would have been a different story.

 

 

btw where is Streakeagle - cant believe I'm defending his crappy F-4 :grin:

Edited by MigBuster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will notice that Walt seems to be comparing the F-104A with the J79-GE-19 which was a far better performer than the F-104G Andy flew and the F-104C used in SEA.

 

He has put up several esays on the 104's relative performance. In one he states, the the only fighters that could provide some trouble with the OLD ENGINE were the F-8 and the F-106 (and of course the Lightning, but that one wasn't around).

The 104 is in no way unsuitable for SEA - it's all down to the mission and requirements set up by the "customers".

There wasn't any fighter that could get four bombs, 600 rounds of 20mm and some decent playtime quicker to the target after CAS-alert. The F-4 could carry more, but would require more time to get to the place of action.

Talking of carrying more stuff: I want to see the onslaught of people that couldn't be convinced of stopping and reassessing their situation after having been bombed by eight (= two F-104s) 750lbs eggs.

 

part of what I was saying that you have missed is that the F-4 can carry more fuel and still maintain a decent loadout thus always wins for this scenario.

 

While carrying more fuel, it has about twice the weight, twice the number of engines and a whole lot more drag.

Overall, the fuel-flow is at least twice as much as in the 104. So if the F-4 deosn't have at least twice as much fuel aboard than the 104, things look quite bad.

 

As I said before: carrying twice the amount of ordnance looks good on paper, but it's not always all about brute numbers.

All bombed-up, the F-4 will have the endurance of a 60 year old chain-smoker - it either needs extensive tanker-support, or it won't be able to bomb the end of it's own runway.

The jury is still out on whether it's better to send off a couple fighters more in the first place, or bombing less aircraft up so they'll need tanker-support every other minute.

 

Some of that applies but as I said before as the AIM-7 got better it became a good option. Firstly the WSO was there to sort out the radar and help employ the AIM-7 - just something the F-104 could not do.

 

The WSO couldn't help much on that - that's what statistics show.

Almost all Sparrows were fired in WVR conditions, where a Sidewinder would have been a better option, yet was unavaliable because strike-Rhinos were only armed with one Sparrow in each of the rear semi-recesses.

Of course, most of those kills could also have been achieved with a gun...

The Sparrow's unique feature (range + headon-capability) was useless in 99% of all engagements, thus the unability of carrying one is a non-issue.

 

the F-104 was a good energy fighter - but when it got to prove it they lost to MiG-19s.

 

Hardly - the 104 was flying blind and got sneaked-up from behind.

The MiG-19 almost ate a return-Sidewinder, but the a/c's hydraulics gave away before the pilot had a good tone.

 

I have a very hard time believing the NVAF were actually deterred by the F-104 - this seems to be VERY wishful thinking

 

The NVAF only chose to fight when the conditions were favourable - such as an escort of F-4s heading to the tanker because their clients are flying at to high speeds for them to cruise efficiently.

Not giving the enemy such an opportunity, saves aircraft.

Whether the NVAF didn't chose to fight because they knew about the 104s is of secondary relevance.

 

but the F-104C Vs F-4D would have been a different story.

 

See the findings of projects Featherduster and the Navy's F-104/F-4 maneuvering/ ACM trials.

The F-4 vertically didn't play in the same league as the 104.

 

 

In order to getting back towards the initial argumentation:

The F-104 would have fit much better as a lightweight-fighter to support it's heavier brethren in SEA than the F-5.

Edited by Toryu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally the J-20 gets some air under its wings.

 

Toryu maybe you can start a ``the F-104 is the bestest +1`` thread I do believe this is a J-20 thread. Stay on target :grin:

Edited by Atreides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toryu::

The F-104 would have fit much better as a lightweight-fighter to support it's heavier brethren in SEA than the F-5.

Could be. I've also read at f-16net (thanks MiGBuster) a pilot saying that F-104 was very easy to maintain.

 

Okay, I'll guess that the F-5's primary design advantage is ease of use for allied nations. Is this Correct Thinking?

 

I like thinking about this...F-5 vs F-104...thanks to both of you for bringing it up. Maybe it would be a great Another Thread, for one thing, I'm poking about for, in the computer game, an inexpensive additional option for protecting deep tanker flights. F-104 would be able to respond more quickly to approaching threats. How about endurance? No matter, both will be involved at one time or another since both are "nifty" planes. Should I do a thread on this if ya'll are into it?

 

If not, a J-20 thread might be okay. :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, maybe it's time for a thread like "Lightweightfighters - now and then" :)

 

``the F-104 is the bestest +1``

 

You'll never hear me saying that.

I'm aware of the a/c's limitations - I'm just trying to shed a bit of light on issues that have been written about the 104 that are plain wrong. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone tried to compare them:

 

post-20260-040202600 1293649520.jpg

J-20 is duble engines J-10 with "Stealth"technology. But need high power engines,becaus have not supersonic cruis speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next Eurofighter is "Made in China" :grin:

 

Typical western line of thought, native workers are too expensive, how will you buy your 18th golden BMW with platinum doorknobs if you employ the "expensive" native worker, some poor barefooted guy in the middle of nowhere will make it for half a cent per year income.

Sure the quality sucks but it's not like you are going to buy that s**tty stuff you make anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we should feel threatened by this J-20, it is likely a prototype that needs years of R.& D. Look at the F-35 that should have been in service 5 years ago. I wouldn't feel threatened by the JSF program. Now in 10-15 years when the J-20 or its final versions are ready for production, and China decides to sell them, then I get worried. If Iran, and or N. Korea have't used their Nuke's yet (these 2 Axis's are working very hard together sharing info do the research look it up), which should be ready about the same time this plane is ready for production. We shouldn't feel threatened China needs the U.S.' economy as crappy as it is. China holds a lot of our debt, w/out us they are up sh!ts creek w/out a paddle. Thank the Govt. for letting this happen 25-30 years ago. If we were to try and start to manufacture like we were back then we would need 10 years of hard work and we wouldn't even come close to the amount that China produces now let alone 10 years from now. Some of China's companies that ship goods in cargo boxes don't want them shipped back they just use new ones. I guess what I am saying don't feel threatened by the Chinese people, they are working hard like us with less reward. It's who China considers allies that I am truly worried about.

Edited by MAKO69
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the F-35 that should have been in service 5 years ago I wouldn't feel threatened by the JSF program. Now in 10-15 years when the J-20 or its final version is ready for production, and China decides to sell them, then I get worried. If Iran, and or N. Korea have't used their Nuke's yet (these 2 are working very hard together sharing info do th research), which should be ready about the same time this plane is ready for production.

 

That is assuming the Chinse havent already done all the testing and stuff and just kept it hush hush. This might be the last tests and they revealed the jet on purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we should feel threatened by this J-20, it is likely a prototype that needs years of R.& D. Look at the F-35 that should have been in service 5 years ago I wouldn't feel threatened by the JSF program. Now in 10-15 years when the J-20 or its final version is ready for production, and China decides to sell them, then I get worried. If Iran, and or N. Korea have't used their Nuke's yet (these 2 are working very hard together sharing info do th research), which should be ready about the same time this plane is ready for production. We shouldn't feel threatened China needs the U.S. Economy as crappy as it is. China holds a lot of our debt, w/out us they are up s**ts creek w/out a paddle. Thank the Govt. for letting this happen 25-30 years ago. If we were to try and start to manufacture like we were back then we would need 10 years of hard work and we wouldn't even come close to the amount that China produces now let alone 10 years from now. Some of China's companies that ship goods in cargo boxes don't want them shipped back they just use new ones. I guess what I am saying don't feel threatened by the Chinese people, they are working hard like us with less reward. It's who China considers allies that I am truly worried about.

 

Don't feel threatened? It doesn't sound like the Defense Secretary is brushing it off so casually.

 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1103550/1/.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is assuming the Chinse havent already done all the testing and stuff and just kept it hush hush. This might be the last tests and they revealed the jet on purpose.

 

I doubt it.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that angle it really does look like the old Firefox!

 

LOL - I thought it was just me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the talk about either the end of days or that this is nothing but a tech demonstrator with no practical use is obviously off the mark. The truth as always lies in the middle.

 

The only question is "is this the first?" The F-117 was the first stealth plane publicly revealed, but it was years after it entered service and even then it took quite some time before it was shown publicly to people with cameras. Only many years afterwards did we finally see the prototypes and the Tacit Rainbow and other demonstrators that led to it.

 

On the one hand, it's quite likely China built their own demonstrators first and kept them secret and who knows when or if we'll ever see them. On the other, in an attempt to appear "not far behind" there's a good chance they simply started with this as all the early work has already been done on scale models. Besides, one thing you can't tell from a photo is how it appears on radar. There are times where you can see an obvious mistake that will mess with stealth, but just because something LOOKS stealthy doesn't mean it really is. That info, of course, they'll want to keep to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't feel threatened? It doesn't sound like the Defense Secretary is brushing it off so casually.

 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1103550/1/.html

 

No I don't feel threatened by China and their people if you read it's who China considers allies I am worried about. This has to be an early pre production model w/a lot more work to go. It looks like it needs a lot of cleaning up those turkey feathers make a lot of radar noise, and the canards not what I would be going for in a stealth plane, maybe it handles like a tractor trailer with out them, there are another set of stabilizes/horizontal stabs in the back and do those move a frack load the whole vert stab/rudder rotate. A bunch of huge control surfaces moving and flashing potential angles that radar looks for. I think China is so happy about this monster they couldn't wait to show it off. I'll bet the Superbug has less of a radar sig than this Yeti.

 

That is assuming the Chinse havent already done all the testing and stuff and just kept it hush hush. This might be the last tests and they revealed the jet on purpose.

 

I double doubt it.

Edited by MAKO69

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some more pics.

 

Big congrats to the Chinese people and the PLAAF, the Red Dragon has woken ! Bet it will be in service with less fuss and unrealistic skyrocketing costs, political finger pointing by different parties and corrupt politicians fighting to get a part of it built in their state.

 

Undoubtedly certain folk here will poo-poo the ability of China to develop sensors and technology on a par with Western analogues, falsely believing that China will always lag behind the west - but, really they're denying the inevitable march towards parity and...beyond.

 

81qAp.jpg

Cn0yv.jpg

TSHDc.jpg

941u9.jpg

dnf9h.jpg

w8Ay5.jpg

Edited by Atreides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last two, for a prototype the finish and quality of workmaship appears to be of a high standard.

 

27_66_8cb6bdeb34f5630.jpg

Edited by Atreides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..