Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Apollo Leader

Aircraft Vs Thread 5

Recommended Posts

I'm just going to come right out and say it: shits ugly. Thing looks like a pancake from the top and the little gippy midget tails are stupid.

Also the YF-23 is ugly as sin too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the YF-23 is ugly as sin too.

Heretic! You shall be forever shunned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heretic! You shall be forever shunned!

At least he didn't say the F-14 is ugly. There is some potential for redemption. If he had said the F-14 is ugly... Well, let's just say my response would be very, VERY, NSFW. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's hope the Russians get it into mass production in serious numbers quickly (unlikely I know), so that the US will have to restart the F-22 production line.

Graham

No, they should start the mass production F-23, which is, as we all know, the better fighter anyway. B))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just going to come right out and say it: shits ugly. Thing looks like a pancake from the top and the little gippy midget tails are stupid.

Also the YF-23 is ugly as sin too.

Hear, hear, wish we could get rid of all this stealth nonsense and get back to building planes that actually look good. Which is off course the most important thing! ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hear, hear, wish we could get rid of all this stealth nonsense and get back to building planes that actually look good. Which is off course the most important thing! ^_^

Wasn't the YF-23 designed with more stealth in mind compared to the YF-22 which sacrificed some of this for better maneuverability thanks to the thrust vector nozzles? Also to comment on so-called bad-looking stealth aircraft. I thought the F-117 and B-2 always looked cool. Well from the front, the F-117 looked cool atleast.

I have to admit though, the more I do look at the T-50, the more appealing it is. Looking forward to what the mass produced versions formal designation will be in the future, if it makes it to that stage.

Edited by Shadow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just going to come right out and say it: shits ugly. Thing looks like a pancake from the top and the little gippy midget tails are stupid.

Also the YF-23 is ugly as sin too.

He's a witch, burn him!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just bring the F-14 back as a E/F model & super cruise Engines! The Best looking fighter will have just gotten better!!

And YF-23 is an Awesome design, Has a bag of stones for haters!!! :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol, if this were China's prototype and not Russian, we would have had 3 pages of:

"NOOOOO ASTRO PLAN GTFO! WTF PLAGIARISM.... FAKE LV HANDBAG!!1!!!"

Other than the nose, which has a decidedly YF-23ish look, the T-50 doesn't look much like existing designs. Compare that with say the J-10, which is nothing more than an up scaled Lavi, or their new not-a-DC-9, and you can see why the Chinese have gotten a reputation for making knock-off planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, China actually uses the tooling/jigs of other planes for their "new" designs. And of course, there was the infamous Chinese order for a bunch of 707 engines and windows, when they didn't have any 707's at the time... (they were building their own knock-off, and the design was so close no other engine would work)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Other than the nose, which has a decidedly YF-23ish look, the T-50 doesn't look much like existing designs. Compare that with say the J-10, which is nothing more than an up scaled Lavi, or their new not-a-DC-9, and you can see why the Chinese have gotten a reputation for making knock-off planes.

You should read the recent IAPR articl on the J-10 if you think its a LAVI knockoff.

Short version: it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. The long winded article (sorry Mandarin only) sometime after the 60th anniversary PRC parade which I read where the Deputy Commander of the PLAAF talks about the J-XX is starting to make sense now.

In the aforesaid article, the salient points I remember are something like.... Goes on about the YF-23. How the J-XX will use S-shaped intakes like the YF-23. Use pelican tails like the YF-23 but due to flight control issues, will have canards too. Internal fuel only issues, but acceptable to PLAAF since the focus is on defence rather then 'Global Policeman'. Thrust vectoring engines. Lessons learned from J-10B intakes to be used. Some other yadda yadda about the YF-23.

Seeing how this T-50 takes many YF-23 cues (that fron quarter profile view really looks like a 23 to me! Especially the landing gears' stance!) and how there is going to be at least SOME Russkie content in the J-XX, the article makes more sense now.

I predict the J-XX is going to be a T-50 with S-intakes and Canards slapped on!

edit : OH yes! STONE AND BURN all them YF-23 haters!!!!! Tasteless atavars!

Edited by Retracting Head Ter Ter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should read the recent IAPR articl on the J-10 if you think its a LAVI knockoff.

Short version: it's not.

Actually I have the IAPR article on the J-10 and the short answer is: it totally is.

The long answer is that most of the modifications to the design were done to compensate for the Chinese industrial base (China doesn't have the experience with composites that Israel has, and the only engine they had access to that was close to suitable for the design was the AL-31) rather than any originality on Chengdu's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. The long winded article (sorry Mandarin only) sometime after the 60th anniversary PRC parade which I read where the Deputy Commander of the PLAAF talks about the J-XX is starting to make sense now.

In the aforesaid article, the salient points I remember are something like.... Goes on about the YF-23. How the J-XX will use S-shaped intakes like the YF-23. Use pelican tails like the YF-23 but due to flight control issues, will have canards too. Internal fuel only issues, but acceptable to PLAAF since the focus is on defence rather then 'Global Policeman'. Thrust vectoring engines. Lessons learned from J-10B intakes to be used. Some other yadda yadda about the YF-23.

Seeing how this T-50 takes many YF-23 cues (that fron quarter profile view really looks like a 23 to me! Especially the landing gears' stance!) and how there is going to be at least SOME Russkie content in the J-XX, the article makes more sense now.

I predict the J-XX is going to be a T-50 with S-intakes and Canards slapped on!

edit : OH yes! STONE AND BURN all them YF-23 haters!!!!! Tasteless atavars!

That sounds like the Skystriker from G.I. Joe Resolute, which was a YF-23 with canards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder how they shielded the engines from radar. From the look of things the entire intake and engine bay assembly is one straight tunnel...

The engines on the prototype are not the engines the production plane will have. The new engines weren't ready in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The engines on the prototype are not the engines the production plane will have. The new engines weren't ready in time.

Yeah but unless they plan on re-designing the entire fuselage, the way the engines are mounted in the plane is final and that means the engine faces will be exposed, which dramatically increases the RCS of the plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but unless they plan on re-designing the entire fuselage, the way the engines are mounted in the plane is final and that means the engine faces will be exposed, which dramatically increases the RCS of the plane.

I remember seeing a diagram of vanes in the intakes shielding the engines from frontal exposure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What style vanes? A blisk-like structure like a Super Hornet right ahead of the fan, or a set of curves in the inlet like a B-1B has?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually I have the IAPR article on the J-10 and the short answer is: it totally is.

The long answer is that most of the modifications to the design were done to compensate for the Chinese industrial base (China doesn't have the experience with composites that Israel has, and the only engine they had access to that was close to suitable for the design was the AL-31) rather than any originality on Chengdu's part.

All I can say is we had quite different readings of that artice. Especially the author's sidebar directly addressing the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say is we had quite different readings of that artice. Especially the author's sidebar directly addressing the issue.

Honestly the sidebar reads like ass covering to maintain access to the Chinese aircraft industry by repeating the official party line. It's clear from the body of the article that it was a pretty direct rip, with concessions made to the realities of the Chinese industrial base. Do I need to pull this picture out again?

J-10-Lavi.gif

My favorite part is how they had to add the odd hump back on the J-10 to maintain the area ruling that was done naturally with the canopy of the smaller Lavi.

Edited by Nied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding oil to the fire...

Aside from the possible IP infringement, what's the big deal about copying of designs? We all know that PRC is not as technologically advanced in the aerospace industry. In order to have even a fighting chance against a probably more technologically superior enemy -- Japan and Taiwan comes to mind immediately -- they need at least 3rd generation fighters.

So it's either "buy" or "build". "Buy" is a limited option; the US won't sell, and the Russians are wary. Besides, the Chinese don't trust the Russians -- their relationship is more of "common enemy" than "friendship". There are only a few countries willing to sell weaponry to China that has the necessary technologies, and there's also the dependency issues.

So it's "build". More long term potential, but a steeper climb. A shortcut is to reverse engineer existing designs. That's really par for course for any industry, so why so much commentary? Sure it's a bit "dirty" the way they did it, but odds are good that they couldn't have done it "legally" anyway.

So the Chinese copied a design. That's not particularly surprising since they'd been doing that for years, just in smaller scale. What they are doing is just ramping up their experience and expertise. A copy now, a modification later, a service-life extension programme... in a decade, if the PRC continues to develop their industry, we could be looking at a serious aerospace manufacturer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding oil to the fire...

Aside from the possible IP infringement, what's the big deal about copying of designs? We all know that PRC is not as technologically advanced in the aerospace industry. In order to have even a fighting chance against a probably more technologically superior enemy -- Japan and Taiwan comes to mind immediately -- they need at least 3rd generation fighters.

So it's either "buy" or "build". "Buy" is a limited option; the US won't sell, and the Russians are wary. Besides, the Chinese don't trust the Russians -- their relationship is more of "common enemy" than "friendship". There are only a few countries willing to sell weaponry to China that has the necessary technologies, and there's also the dependency issues.

So it's "build". More long term potential, but a steeper climb. A shortcut is to reverse engineer existing designs. That's really par for course for any industry, so why so much commentary? Sure it's a bit "dirty" the way they did it, but odds are good that they couldn't have done it "legally" anyway.

So the Chinese copied a design. That's not particularly surprising since they'd been doing that for years, just in smaller scale. What they are doing is just ramping up their experience and expertise. A copy now, a modification later, a service-life extension programme... in a decade, if the PRC continues to develop their industry, we could be looking at a serious aerospace manufacturer.

From I have read about the J-10 the Israeli's were helping the Chines develop it in the late Eighties so they were payed for the knowledge so their is no theft just commerce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding oil to the fire...

Aside from the possible IP infringement, what's the big deal about copying of designs? We all know that PRC is not as technologically advanced in the aerospace industry. In order to have even a fighting chance against a probably more technologically superior enemy -- Japan and Taiwan comes to mind immediately -- they need at least 3rd generation fighters.

?????

First of all, Japan and Taiwan are hardly enemies of China unless China wants to go to war with them.

Secondly, Japan flies outdated F-15s, ancient F-4 Phantoms, and the F-2 (which is nothing more than a slightly upgraded F-16). Taiwan flies early model F16s, the Mirage-2000, the homegrown Ching-Kuo (a lightweight F-16-ish fighter), and some elderly F-5Es. Neither air force is a threat to China.

The PLAAF has had the Su-27 in service since the 1990's. The J-10 I think has already been in service for 5-6 years. And ofcourse the PLAAF is numerically superior to pretty much everyone else in the region.

Edited by Vifam7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China dare not make a move against Japan, with its 9th generation missile defense shield program!

d574c052b46c3cb273af10b69327496f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...the Russians are wary...

Maybe because the PRCs totally ripped them off with the J-11? :lol: Anyway, with the J-10 it isn't really the copying of the Lavi that pisses me off, its the fact that they copied (or bought it from the Israelis) and yet they loudly trumpet it as their own work. They should at least give credit where it is due!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
?????

First of all, Japan and Taiwan are hardly enemies of China unless China wants to go to war with them.

Secondly, Japan flies outdated F-15s, ancient F-4 Phantoms, and the F-2 (which is nothing more than a slightly upgraded F-16). Taiwan flies early model F16s, the Mirage-2000, the homegrown Ching-Kuo (a lightweight F-16-ish fighter), and some elderly F-5Es. Neither air force is a threat to China.

The PLAAF has had the Su-27 in service since the 1990's. The J-10 I think has already been in service for 5-6 years. And ofcourse the PLAAF is numerically superior to pretty much everyone else in the region.

China considers Taiwan a rogue province... then there's that anti-secession law and the use of force to maintain their "one china" policy. They may not be actively at war but they're hardly on cordial terms and the threat of violence is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody read whether or not the T-50 will have thrust vectoring?

Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't look like it, but variable LERX's are rumored/possible. Need better/more footage though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will LMAO if sometime in the future, the US ended up having to buy or licence produce these from the Russians.

Could happen if the F-22 production line is closed, jigs destroyed, and a credible A2A threat emerged to challenge the US.

Graham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will LMAO if sometime in the future, the US ended up having to buy or licence produce these from the Russians.

Could happen if the F-22 production line is closed, jigs destroyed, and a credible A2A threat emerged to challenge the US.

Graham

Well for now the F-22 line is done (might be a few projects or upgrades later, but nothing now), but the US will bankrupt itself first before ever buying a Russian aircraft or license, to much %$%@^@ pride...

Edited by 505thAirborne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, Japan and Taiwan are hardly enemies of China unless China wants to go to war with them.

Trying not to stray into political discussions, but just as a background note...

There is considerable friction over historical reasons between Japan and China, and Taiwan and China. In the former, it's about the Japanese invasion in the 30s and 40s and their current day interpretation of the events, plus some territorial disputes IIRC; the latter, as eugimon pointed out, an issue about "One China". Both aren't exactly background rumbling, but all involved are actively trying not to escalate it too much.

And while neither are really "high-tech" in terms of airframe, we all know that if a shooting war starts, a US CVBG will be nearby... and that's, IMO, what PRC is concerned about.

Maybe because the PRCs totally ripped them off with the J-11? :lol: Anyway, with the J-10 it isn't really the copying of the Lavi that pisses me off, its the fact that they copied (or bought it from the Israelis) and yet they loudly trumpet it as their own work. They should at least give credit where it is due!

Eh, I assume you might not have too much contact with Far Eastern society Chinese... correct me if I'm wrong. There's two part to this. The first is propaganda -- remember that much of the official PRC releases are propaganda meant for both external and internal consumption. The line about "it's our own work!" is meant to be fed to the internal public for morale purposes.

The second part is about "saving face" (but is tied to the first). If the PRC government admits to copying a design, traditional Chinese views have a tendency to see it as "losing face". Doesn't quite work out in a traditionally minded Chinese society. Individually they may all be willing to admit and credit as you said, but collectively they'll all toe the party line to avoid making the whole country "lose face".

Ok, back to laughing about the possibility that the US might have to buy Russian airframes... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will LMAO if sometime in the future, the US ended up having to buy or licence produce these from the Russians.

Could happen if the F-22 production line is closed, jigs destroyed, and a credible A2A threat emerged to challenge the US.

Graham

That is if Sukhoi can stay in business too. I don't recall Russian planes being hot sellers lately. Futures sales are unknown and who knows how many Russia itself can afford to buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will LMAO if sometime in the future, the US ended up having to buy or licence produce these from the Russians.

Could happen if the F-22 production line is closed, jigs destroyed, and a credible A2A threat emerged to challenge the US.

Graham

I don't think they'll destroy the jigs this time. Remember Cheney isn't the Defense Secretary anymore. Plus, Grumman didn't make the F-22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is if Sukhoi can stay in business too. I don't recall Russian planes being hot sellers lately. Futures sales are unknown and who knows how many Russia itself can afford to buy.

Russia can barely afford planes for themselves, so I suspect sales would most likely go to India once again(who not only operate the most advanced Flanker to reach mass production; SU-30MKI, but also bought a carrier off of the Russians and are getting the navalized Fulcrums to go with it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think they'll destroy the jigs this time. Remember Cheney isn't the Defense Secretary anymore. Plus, Grumman didn't make the F-22.

Are you talking about the A-12 navy stealth carrier plane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...