|
How many of those Chinese aircraft you posted are in production, and how many are "proposed", i.e. a pipe dream.
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:How many of those Chinese aircraft you posted are in production, and how many are "proposed", i.e. a pipe dream. J-10: In service, ~190 built J-11 and J-11B: In production, ~120 built J-15, J-20: under development and in flight testing
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
Epic Fail Guy posted:How many of those Chinese aircraft you posted are in production, and how many are "proposed", i.e. a pipe dream. Not only are you wrong with this post, you are also completely missing the point of producing fighters like the F-22, and that's just the best. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed your original post was for comedy, and now I'm going to do it again and assume you are just poorly trolling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 18:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That's crazy. Obviously I've never seen an empty one take off. I saw one at Maxwell that I was absolutely convinced would run into the trees at the end of the runway. When it crawled into the sky it looked like it was doing about 75 kts and climbing 2 ft per min. I watched much longer than I usually do, I really thought we were gonna lose an airplane. I live near the 105th Airlift, and work directly across the street. It's loving crazy what a C-5 can do. Combat landings are the best, though. I can't even describe it. I post this video too much. e- also jesus christ we're not going to war with China build more A-10s Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Sep 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 18:54
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I live near the 105th Airlift, and work directly across the street. It's loving crazy what a C-5 can do. Watching an a-10 demonstration a few years ago was just mind blowing. It's ridiculous how good they are at diving in on something and pulling back out. They aren't fast planes, but god drat they can turn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X81YvgvEsuc One of my favorite memories was during a high school golf tournament at the golf course outside of Ellsworth. A pair of a-10s were making a pass before landing, and planes landing there fly right over the 2nd hole on the golf course. A-10's flying 100 feet above you as you tee off is awesome 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 20:05
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:e- also jesus christ we're not going to war with China While I 100% agree with you that we're not going to war with China, I'm concerned about who they'll sell to. They don't hang out with reputable types. Also, build more A10s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
Advent Horizon posted:While I 100% agree with you that we're not going to war with China, I'm concerned about who they'll sell to. They don't hang out with reputable types. quote:Also, build more A10s. drat, I've got to fire up that A10 sim now. If I could only remember how to start the engines.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV35B-vfT4U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MDnglKtcSA&feature=related
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn4MVoIEJvU Video from NASA about the SSMEs. Not incredibly detailed, but some interesting stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
If you want to discuss geopolitics/strategy, there's a decent thread (started by yours truly) over in GiP, but suffice to say that it's not about whether we are going to fight a war with China, it's that any use of force by them is too terrible to contemplate (due to the opportunity for rapid escalation) so we need to do everything in our power to prevent it...diplomatic and political means play a strong role in this effort, but there is a military conventional/non-nuclear deterrent component to it as well, and putting all your eggs in one basket with "built more A-10s/all low-intensity warfare all the time" is dangerous and the opposite of strategic thinking intended to mitigate risk. Anyway, enough of that geopolitics derail, back to the technology. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I am a little concerned with things about The Red Menace Of Chinese Stealth Aircrafts and such that we are MiG-25ing the J-20 (and will do so with all future aircraft as well). The US consistently overestimated Soviet capability during the Cold War. We have just as consistently underestimated the timeline on the development of Chinese technology. Only two years ago, the Varyag was a floating casino and we expected it to stay that way, the DF-21D was barely into development and most people expected them to be lucky to have it in an operational configuration within a decade (much less deployed), and the J-20 was J-XX and no one really expected it to amount to much of anything...maybe have a few enter service 25 years down the road. Now the Shi Lang has started sea trials, they've reached IOC with the DF-21D, and the J-20 has publicly flown, and is expected to be operational by the end of the decade. You raise a fair point, particularly with the J-20 since we don't know very much about it (unclassified, anyway) and there is a lot of speculation, but in general the trend with Chinese tech has been to underestimate, not overestimate. ManifunkDestiny posted:Until China cribs enough from Russia/the US enough to actually make a decent jet engine, I won't be concerned about the airframes they produce This is a fair point in that China's historical weak point in its aerospace industry has been jet engines, but they have been making a lot of progress (just look at the WS-10) and as I stated above, the general trend is to underestimate Chinese capability and timelines, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were completely self sufficient within a few years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Well, to be fair the J-20 isn't even in the same ballpark as the T-50, let alone the F-22. Robert Gates originally said pre J-20 rollout that China could have an operational 5th generation fighter by 2020. Considering where they are with the J-20 prototype we've seen, I think that seems pretty on target if not optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Only two years ago, the Varyag was a floating casino and we expected it to stay that way I think you mean  floating casino
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Well, to be fair the J-20 isn't even in the same ballpark as the T-50, let alone the F-22. Robert Gates originally said pre J-20 rollout that China could have an operational 5th generation fighter by 2020. Considering where they are with the J-20 prototype we've seen, I think that seems pretty on target if not optimistic. The F-22 is going to be the front-line fighter for at least 30 years, probably closer to 50. That's when the next generation fighter is likely to appear. Why in the world would we want to cash out and stick with F-15s for that long? That's something a lot of people don't think about...the USAF isn't buying to counter threats in the next 5 years. We've got that pretty well covered. We're looking DECADES down the road.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:If you want to discuss geopolitics/strategy, there's a decent thread (started by yours truly) over in GiP, but suffice to say that it's not about whether we are going to fight a war with China, it's that any use of force by them is too terrible to contemplate (due to the opportunity for rapid escalation) so we need to do everything in our power to prevent it...diplomatic and political means play a strong role in this effort, but there is a military conventional/non-nuclear deterrent component to it as well, and putting all your eggs in one basket with "built more A-10s/all low-intensity warfare all the time" is dangerous and the opposite of strategic thinking intended to mitigate risk. Don't discount their espionage capabilities as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
slidebite posted:What concerns in particular? Of course there are risks in development and cost over-runs, but if it delivers as promised I think it's fine (which might be slightly miraculous, I agree) especially since we'll be flying the things forever. Well, since you asked: 1. The procurement process has been incredibly lovely. At no point did anyone ask the Canadian Military what they actually needed in their next gen Fighter-bomber (as a mattar of fact, a strategic review hasn't been done since 1995.) At the same time, there was no competition for the new contract, either. So it's a giant procurement program with crazy money being spent that ignores all the most basic rules of how a government should buy things. The reason for all this is of course political. Lockheed promised a ton of baksheeh to the Fed in the form of spending the same amount in Canada as Canada spends on the F-35. In the Fed's mind at this point, it doesn't matter if the F-35 is made of canvas and string; the only important thing to the Fed is the ability to mint as much political currency as possible from the military. gently caress any sort of question of "is this right for us." The government got its cut, who the gently caress cares about anything else? (Note: the above is a criticism of how the Federal government works regardless of who's in charge, not a 'Cons Bad! Libs good!' sorta thing. ) 2. The F-35 as of right now is a ton of unknowns, which is not true of it's competition. What I mean by that is the F-35 is going to be chock full of technology from the F-22, which on the F-22 breaks all the time. They may have fixed this by now, but I heard the voice interface software can't understand you if you speak Australian, for example. Oh, and speaking of software, unlike every other fighter on the market, the F-35's software is not going to be released to other countries. (Actually this makes perfect sense considering the deal Lockheed made: tiny profit with the planes, huge profits with servicing.) 3. The F-35 lacks a feature that Canada could really use, and has an expensive feature of dubious value. Fuckin' plane doesn't supercruise, the one modern fighter feature that'd be incredibly useful in a nation as large as ours. I mean, up until the 1980s we bought interceptors, not fighters, just to handle our vast airspaces. It has better stealth then the competition, but that's only of use in a war with a technologically advanced nation. In the type of war you actually get (low intensity conflict where ground support is paramount) it's of limited value. The stealth capability of the F-35 is also less then the F-22, and of course that vanishes entirely if you slap any external fuel tanks/weapons on. It seems to me it's a stealth fighter in one very specific configuration, and a regular 4.5 gen fighter outside of that configuration. All of this also begs the question of if it's worth the now quite-considerable premium is over the competition. At it's original price point, the F-35 is good value; add 50% to that price...it doesn't make much sense, and lord knows what it will cost if/when all the bugs are worked out. This brings me to my final point. All of this is is bad on it's own, but it's crazy - 4.- in a buyer's market. I think we've talked about this before. There are many alternate planes that are cheaper, have proven reliability, and would possibly fit Canada's needs better. Just from the States: the Super Hornet and the F-15SE (that's Silent Eagle, not special edition.) The Eurofighter (which by the way the UK right now wants to fire-sale a bunch of theirs thanks to austerity measures. Maybe the whole sub fire thing has turned us off from buying from the Brits, though...) The Ralfe, and the Gripen. All of these are available at very competitive terms. In closing, I should say I can be convinced that the F-35 is good. If point one was addressed and the Canadian Military concluded that the F-35 was best, I'd be all for it. As it is now, I have grave doubts and worry it will turn into a catasterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
The F-35 is the best plane for the job, in my opinion. And it's the last manned fighter Canada will ever buy, so yall better learn to love it asap!
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:F-15SE (that's Silent Eagle, not special edition.) I figured as much, but I had to Google to confirm that "silent" in this case was referring to its stealth features, because goddamn are F-15s loud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
I often wonder how much better served the military would be with quieter aircraft. They're stealthy up high, but when they come down near a guy with an RPG, he can hear it coming for an hour. After a nice meal, he'll still have plenty of time to target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Tremblay posted:Don't discount their espionage capabilities as well. I just assume that anything and everything the United States develops in any industry is up for grabs. It's just easier that way, I'm never surprised. Corporate security is loving abysmal everywhere because nobody gives a flying gently caress. I mean, if your brother-in-law the CTO fucks up, you call in your other brother-in-law's firm to take care of "security audits" right? All while 15 years of R&D and trial and error was acquired by China for instant use because some fuckwit somewhere couldn't be assed to patch a server. Drop a USB stick in the parking lot, and watch how many retards will pick it up and plug it into their work PCs. There was a story a little while ago about this being the most effective way to get software running on a corporate network. Also regarding last page and discussion on engine cores, it's a sweet gig for the aerospace industry. Granted, they deliver some of the most complicated engineering systems in the world, but it's nice to take that product you developed for Uncle Sam and with his money and adapt it for civilian use to feed your other business units.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
Cygni posted:Not only are you wrong with this post, you are also completely missing the point of producing fighters like the F-22, and that's just the best. Next time something like this comes up it'd be nice if you could reply with an informative post like iyaayas and Kilonum did instead of throwing out a lame accusation that contributes nothing in the way of getting more knowledge to more people who might be interested in the subject and interested in posting along with you. I say this because I see you have some knowledge about this stuff which you've shared elsewhere in the thread. BeastPussy fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Sep 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 03:24
|
|
|
movax posted:I just assume that anything and everything the United States develops in any industry is up for grabs. It's just easier that way, I'm never surprised. Corporate security is loving abysmal everywhere because nobody gives a flying gently caress. Amen. quote:Also regarding last page and discussion on engine cores, it's a sweet gig for the aerospace industry. Granted, they deliver some of the most complicated engineering systems in the world, but it's nice to take that product you developed for Uncle Sam and with his money and adapt it for civilian use to feed your other business units. See, trickle down does work! (That's tongue in cheek)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 03:36
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:I figured as much, but I had to Google to confirm that "silent" in this case was referring to its stealth features, because goddamn are F-15s loud. I live under the approach path for Seymour Johnson AFB (god drat that name is hilarious), also known as the largest repository of Mud Hens in the world. For some reason they have to light up the afterburners for a couple of seconds when they lower the landing gear. Started a new job at an aerospace manufacturer today, and learned that the first of their new product is shipping out via a rented Antonov in a couple of weeks. That'll be my first time ever seeing a Russian plan in person, awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Breast Pussy posted:Next time something like this comes up it'd be nice if you could reply with an informative I generally don't feel like writing long posts that I assume everyone else doesn't want to read, just to try to argue with someone with an obvious agenda that isn't interested in actually talking in the first place. But I'll try to be less of a dick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
Cygni posted:I generally don't feel like writing long posts that I assume everyone else doesn't want to read, just to try to argue with someone with an obvious agenda that isn't interested in actually talking in the first place. The forums are full of long posts that people read all the time, many of them far less interesting than even the worst posts in AI. Don't be afraid to get long winded even if the person you're talking/arguing with doesn't care because others will.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 06:39
|
|
|
From Popular Mechanics - http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...click=pm_latestquote:A week after the catastrophic crash at the Reno Air Races that killed 11 people and injured dozens more, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) today released its preliminary report on the incident. While the report revealed little new information of note, it confirmed the most salient details and laid the groundwork for a longer report that will take approximately a year to complete. Only when that final report is issued will the NTSB make recommendations that may affect future running of the Reno races—or, possibly, cause them to be shut down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 07:01
|
|
|
The Locator posted:From Popular Mechanics - http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...click=pm_latest Dear GOD. 22 Gs? He was a puddle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 07:50
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:Dear GOD. 22 Gs? He was a puddle. 22.5g's...Jesus Christ. To put that in perspective, John Stapp, who was insane and rode rocket sleds for fun, set the g-force world record at 25g's over 1.1 seconds, with an instantaneous force of 46s. So 22.5g's sustained over the course of that pull up and rollover...gently caress. He was out as soon as the trim tab let go, especially so given that it was unexpected (having warning and prepping/straining against g force makes a difference in an individual's ability to resist blacking out) That article raises a good point about the aircraft remaining intact...if it had broken up over the crowd things could've been a lot worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I think that's the big concern. Russia has been pretty aggressively marketing their AC too. Then I saw the "Part 1" in the title. Holy jesus, you have to REALLY want to be an armchair pilot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 09:38
|
|
|
Canada could have bought an Su-35/Su-30MK variant with super-cruise, longer range, heavier payload, presumably guaranteed to start in the cold, for a lower cost than the F35. Plus, you know that every Su-35 not bought by Canada is going to end up on the other team. Politicians screw everything up.  EDIT: Su-35MKK. Модернизированный, Коммерческий, канадский. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Sep 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 10:08
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Canada could have bought an Su-35/Su-30MK variant with super-cruise, longer range, heavier payload, presumably guaranteed to start in the cold, for a lower cost than the F35. Plus, you know that every Su-35 not bought by Canada is going to end up on the other team. Russian support is terrible and the Su-35 is 20 years old. Also the ability of the MKK to supercruise is...suspect. They have rather finnicky engines that require massive overhauls at about 1/10th the hours as their Western counterparts. Oh, and the engines are still in testing because they have a failure problem. Godholio fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
ursa_minor posted:Dear GOD. 22 Gs? He was a puddle. I find it difficult to believe that the airframe could take 22 Gs without coming apart. The ultimate load factor for the F-15 is 11 Gs
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I find it difficult to believe that the airframe could take 22 Gs without coming apart. The ultimate load factor for the F-15 is 11 Gs
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I find it difficult to believe that the airframe could take 22 Gs without coming apart. The ultimate load factor for the F-15 is 11 Gs There's a photo from the accident sequence running around online that shows the fuselage just behind the wing to be visibly wrinkled, which indicates that there was structural damage of some kind after the tab failed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Russian support is terrible and the Su-35 is 20 years old. Also the ability of the MKK to supercruise is...suspect. They have rather finnicky engines that require massive overhauls at about 1/10th the hours as their Western counterparts. Oh, and the engines are still in testing because they have a failure problem. 1/10th the hours of which western counterpart? The F35? How feasable is it to use western engines on the airframe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 18:06
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:1/10th the hours of which western counterpart? The F35? Not feasible at all. Engines and airframe are so tightly integrated that neither party would allow the other to re-engineer the aircraft to fit Western engines. As much as the Russians would love to get their hands on an F135 or the like (which won't happen), they sure as hell wouldn't let Western engineers dig around in their aircraft's computers to make it work properly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Not feasible at all. Engines and airframe are so tightly integrated that neither party would allow the other to re-engineer the aircraft to fit Western engines. As much as the Russians would love to get their hands on an F135 or the like (which won't happen), they sure as hell wouldn't let Western engineers dig around in their aircraft's computers to make it work properly. The F15s sold to South Korea and Singapore use different engines than other F15s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 18:30
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I find it difficult to believe that the airframe could take 22 Gs without coming apart. The ultimate load factor for the F-15 is 11 Gs The article doesn't really state that it was under a sustained 22g load, just that it hit 22g's. The original airframe was designed for sustained high g-loads (7+?) in combat conditions with much more weight on the aircraft in fuel and weapons, both in the fuselage, and wings. The race place had been recently rebuilt, and had much shorter wings (I think they were clipped 5'). The combination of recent rebuild, clipped wings, and much less weight on the airframe could combine to allow for much higher g-loading survivability for a short period of time. I'm sure that under a continuous g-load of 22g's, that the airframe would have come apart fairly soon though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
The Locator posted:From Popular Mechanics - http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...click=pm_latest I really, really hope the NTSB only makes airframe reccomendations (which will be moot on P51s anyway because everyong flying them will be looking to upgrade parts). I accept higher levels of risk walking to the truck every morning than I'd have sitting in the stands at Reno. I'm also being serious, I'm more likely to end up in a fistfight with a bear here than a person had of dying in that grandstand. You can't eliminate risk, you can only make people aware of it. It reminds me of a Top Gear episode where Clarkson was talking to some guy who said 'with enough rules, you don't need common sense', and he rufused to accept that he had it backwards.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 18:38
|
|
|
I can't remember if I read this earlier in this thread or in another, but I thought that the reason the Russians have much lower major overhaul times is due to a significantly different operation philosophy. They don't do FOD sweeps and expect to use them of far poorer condition runways combined with the fact that they don't do much interim maintenence and prefer to pull the engines out and send them whole to large factories where they can get them rebuilt easily partially utilising some of their compulsary national service workforce. I got the impression it was just run them and rebuild them more frequently rather than continuous maintenece and longer major overhaul times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 18:40
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The F15s sold to South Korea and Singapore use different engines than other F15s. The F110 engine was designed to be close to the F100 (used in most other F-15s as well as the F-16), so there is less work needed to make it fit in an F-15 than it would be to get it to fit in an Su-27 variant. Make no mistake, though; there was still quite a bit of airframe and software work needed to make the F110 work in the F-15.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
MrChips posted:The F110 engine was designed to be close to the F100 (used in most other F-15s as well as the F-16), so there is less work needed to make it fit in an F-15 than it would be to get it to fit in an Su-27 variant. Make no mistake, though; there was still quite a bit of airframe and software work needed to make the F110 work in the F-15. Half (probably more) the point of this whole exercise is to make work for the domestic aerospace industries. If it wasn't this it would be something else. Most buyers of these things will end up doing a lot of the assembly work in their home countries. Canada has a domestic aerospace industry, there's nothing South Korea can do that Canada can't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 19:17
|
|