| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Avon Lady
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 3267
Location: Jerusalem, Israel
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 7:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| As many people said in French here back when they canceled th project: c'est Lavi! :dead: |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JSLTIGER
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 931
Location: Duke University, Durham, North Carolina USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeepSix wrote: | To go out on what I am sure will be a controversial limb (although not for the sake of stirring any up, though): I don't like the idea of selling military tech to the Chinese either; however, as others have pointed out, it's an F-16 in shape and wing, but not necessarily in other ways. Even if it does not use the fuel hungry Russian engines, it still lacks the range of new birds like the F/A-22, which can cruise at supersonic speed.
A lot of how you look at this depends on how you look at air doctrine. The U.S. seems to be moving back toward the tactical bomber role after the last couple decades of favoring air superiority (they sneak in the "A" in the model number; I think even the F-117 was originally conceived as a "B-x" or "A-x" plane). I'm not saying one doctrine's better than another, just that the U.S. seems to go in cycles. In the late 50s and early 60s it was all about higher and faster, then it evolved into favoring maneuver. The F(A)-22 may or may not be the ultimate fighter, but IMO the U.S. is still setting the pace in terms of R&D. Selling the J-10 *may* not be giving away as much as we think.
Just my opinion. |
To nit pick: The Raptor was renamed prior to entering service from F/A-22 to F-22A. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepSix
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Location: DB22
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JSLTIGER wrote: | | To nit pick: The Raptor was renamed prior to entering service from F/A-22 to F-22A. |
Interesting; I thought it was the other way 'round. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeepSix wrote: | | JSLTIGER wrote: | | To nit pick: The Raptor was renamed prior to entering service from F/A-22 to F-22A. |
Interesting; I thought it was the other way 'round. Thanks! |
It started as the F-22 (many years ago) then it became the F/A-22 then about a year ago it became the F-22A. Easy to get it all confused.
... all they really did was move the 'A'...   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
*[FOX]* Bort
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 430
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | It started as the F-22 (many years ago) then it became the F/A-22 then about a year ago it became the F-22A. Easy to get it all confused.
... all they really did was move the 'A'... |
That was a classic case of "selling" a weapons system to congress. The Secretary of the Air Force renamed it a few years ago to F/A-22 when its funding seemed to be at risk, trying to convince congress that the Raptor was just as much an attack plane as a fighter and therefore more valuble-right . When the funding was secure, lo and behold the Raptor was once again the F-22. Cute. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
*[FOX]* Bort
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 430
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | To go out on what I am sure will be a controversial limb (although not for the sake of stirring any up, though): I don't like the idea of selling military tech to the Chinese either; however, as others have pointed out, it's an F-16 in shape and wing, but not necessarily in other ways. Even if it does not use the fuel hungry Russian engines, it still lacks the range of new birds like the F/A-22, which can cruise at supersonic speed.
A lot of how you look at this depends on how you look at air doctrine. The U.S. seems to be moving back toward the tactical bomber role after the last couple decades of favoring air superiority (they sneak in the "A" in the model number; I think even the F-117 was originally conceived as a "B-x" or "A-x" plane). I'm not saying one doctrine's better than another, just that the U.S. seems to go in cycles. In the late 50s and early 60s it was all about higher and faster, then it evolved into favoring maneuver. The F(A)-22 may or may not be the ultimate fighter, but IMO the U.S. is still setting the pace in terms of R&D. Selling the J-10 *may* not be giving away as much as we think.
Just my opinion. |
Agreed, sort of.
While there is no way the J-10 will ever be as good as the F-22, the concern I have is in sheer numbers. With the USAF buying as few as 180 Raptors, it could be difficult to cover all the bases in a major war with China. I have no idea how many J-10s the Chinese plan to make, but I'll bet its gonna be a boatload. The chinese have a habit of mass producing this kind of stuff on epic scales. And a ton of fighters comparable to F-16's in performance with top of the line Israeli and Russian electronics can't be good.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| *[FOX]* Bort wrote: | | And a ton of fighters comparable to F-16's in performance with top of the line Israeli and Russian electronics can't be good. |
No big deal on that the F-16 isn’t that good. It can’t do high G turns with a full internal tank like an F-15 can. Let me give you an example an ANG buddy of mine told me;
An F-15 pilot decides he wants to show some F-16 pilots waiting to take off a thing or two, the F-15 pilot takes off does an immediate 180 degree turn and lands on the adjacent runway. He tells the 16 pilots “Do that!” 
The F-16 is a cheap “filler” aircraft for when the USAF didn’t have the funding to buy a solely F-15 force that it wanted. The 16 was really just a replacement for the F-104 Starfighter and F-5 Tiger and we know how far those planes went in the USAF (Only thing they are good for is when a pilot wants to play at being a MiG pilot or needs to train for spaceflight). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JSLTIGER
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 931
Location: Duke University, Durham, North Carolina USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| *[FOX]* Bort wrote: | | Quote: | To go out on what I am sure will be a controversial limb (although not for the sake of stirring any up, though): I don't like the idea of selling military tech to the Chinese either; however, as others have pointed out, it's an F-16 in shape and wing, but not necessarily in other ways. Even if it does not use the fuel hungry Russian engines, it still lacks the range of new birds like the F/A-22, which can cruise at supersonic speed.
A lot of how you look at this depends on how you look at air doctrine. The U.S. seems to be moving back toward the tactical bomber role after the last couple decades of favoring air superiority (they sneak in the "A" in the model number; I think even the F-117 was originally conceived as a "B-x" or "A-x" plane). I'm not saying one doctrine's better than another, just that the U.S. seems to go in cycles. In the late 50s and early 60s it was all about higher and faster, then it evolved into favoring maneuver. The F(A)-22 may or may not be the ultimate fighter, but IMO the U.S. is still setting the pace in terms of R&D. Selling the J-10 *may* not be giving away as much as we think.
Just my opinion. |
Agreed, sort of.
While there is no way the J-10 will ever be as good as the F-22, the concern I have is in sheer numbers. With the USAF buying as few as 180 Raptors, it could be difficult to cover all the bases in a major war with China. I have no idea how many J-10s the Chinese plan to make, but I'll bet its gonna be a boatload. The chinese have a habit of mass producing this kind of stuff on epic scales. And a ton of fighters comparable to F-16's in performance with top of the line Israeli and Russian electronics can't be good. |
However, there are a few things that remain in the USAF's favor. More planes require more fuel, something that as we can see is increasingly becoming a problem. The F-22 is certainly far from economical in that sense, but the ability to supercruise is certainly invaluable.
The Chinese air force is known not only for its quantity over quality philosophy, but also is notorious for its maintanence problems. On a regular basis, a large proportion of the air force is grounded due to maintanence problems.
Finally, do not forget that in simulations using the currently unbeaten-in-combat F-15s, F-22s regularly splash large numbers without losing any of their own. Granted these are simulations and do not reflect real life, but they are designed to see just how effective the F-22 is. For a more accurate exercise, trying the F-22 against the MiG-29 and Su-27 would prove interesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepSix
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Location: DB22
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, IMO the F-15 has proven to be the better of the two (over the 16), and its combat record is impressive to say the least. Another advantage for the 22 is that it is stealthier than other air superiority fighters (theoretically, of course - I can't prove it  ).
As for the F-5 and Starfighter, I might be wrong but I was under the impression that they were never really intended for front line duty with the USAF anyway; seems like I read (a looong time ago) that they were developed for use as MiG stand-ins in training and for us to sell to "friendly" nations (back when that sort of thing was less frowned upon). But again, I could be wrong.
I agree that having the J-10 in "numbers" might pose something of a threat, but think the USAF's definite advantages in stealth and night-strike capability (turn-around/number of sorties we can fly, too) would *probably* counteract that. Probably. Hope it won't take combat to bear that out, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abraham
Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Posts: 3313
Location: Amsterdam Holland
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 1:27 am Post subject: Thanks alot, Israel... |
|
|
Russian and Israeli electronics will do a lot to keep the J-10 a valuable fighter for a few decades but being designed in the late '80's / early '90s and being comparable with an F 16 it will never be able to make the leap towards the new generation on 21 century fighters.
Furthermore I fear no war with China. China needs to keep it's more and more vocal population quiet by turning them into consumers. Any war wouls throw the Chinese economy completely out of gear...
The problem with the J-10 is that it might compete on the world market with westers fighters. But whether that is a big problem? I doubt it.
My conclusion is: let the Chinese build the Lavi/J-10. Makes them less dependant of Russia. And the plane will never be a serious challenge for the newest generation of US fighters.
I even bet that the US tacidly agreed with the sale of the license building of the Lavi in China. The days of the US-Israeli Lavi war are long gone... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TLAM Strike
Joined: 30 Apr 2002
Posts: 4866
Location: Rochester, New York
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DeepSix wrote: | | As for the F-5 and Starfighter, I might be wrong but I was under the impression that they were never really intended for front line duty with the USAF anyway; seems like I read (a looong time ago) that they were developed for use as MiG stand-ins in training and for us to sell to "friendly" nations (back when that sort of thing was less frowned upon). But again, I could be wrong. |
The F-104 was designed to be a US MiG for front line duty after our Pilots experience in Korea (They wanted a small, fast, maneuverable, lightweight, and simple fighter). It didn't go far because it turn out to be inadequate in every mission assigned and ended up being more successful in export.
The F-5 the Army wanted for front line duty but the USAF said no way your getting a fixed wing and we don't want them. So the Kennedy Administration put them up for export. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeonSamurai
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TLAM Strike wrote: | | An F-15 pilot decides he wants to show some F-16 pilots waiting to take off a thing or two, the F-15 pilot takes off does an immediate 180 degree turn and lands on the adjacent runway. He tells the 16 pilots “Do that!” |
That story is so full of holes its not funny. There is no way the tower would ever let a 15 pilot pull a stunt like that as it breaks many many different rules and safety regulations, plus it's excedingly dangerous, and if the pilot did that with out permission he would get court martialed and sent to prison so fast his ears would be spinning.
Second F16's can pull full g's with full internal tanks while carrying typical air to air weapon loadout of 4 AIM-9's 4 AIM-120's and the standard underbelly jammer pod, though it will bleed off energy quicker then a 15 (mainly because of the 15's 2 bigger, stronger engines) however it cant do that while carring its full air to ground loadout (but then again the F15E cant either). 16's have a tighter turn radius, and faster turn rate then the 15 and can carry a much larger ratio of ordinance then the 15, 16 can carry just about its dry weight in additional ordinance, the 15 i think can carry half its dry weight (i should probably look it up though to be sure).
In my opinion the F16 has always been a good solid plane that does it's job well, it is also very economical to operate vs a F15, and easily upgradeable, Its also one of the best multi roll fighters available and can easily switch from an air to air mission to an air to ground mission just by changing whats straped on the wings and is very effective at both missions. However it is not designed as a dedicated air to air interceptor/superiority platform, thats the F15 and F22's main job.
Ok with that out of the way, im surprized no one has noticed the one major difference between the lavi and the J-10 which is clearly shown in those 2 photos... Which is the size difference between the 2 aircraft. I meen look at the cockpits and notice the amount of space each takes up. The J-10 looks to be about twice the size of the lavi or F16. Around the same scale as a f15 or f14 or mig 25. That would significantly change how the aircraft would perform and the types of missions it would be capable of doing. As well as fuel consumption and the ammount it can carry. Not to mention changing its internal structure significantly.
As for the supercruising F22's engines. Let me explain what supercruise is for those who may not know  Basicly supercruise allows a plane to go supersonic with out using afterburners (afterburners use incredible ammounts of fuel, your typical plane will empty a full tank of gas in 10 minutes or less using full afterburners). However operating the F22 in supercruise is not super efficent, it still takes 2 massivly powerfull engines and a lot of fuel to do it. But it does give the F22 the ability to more quickly get into shooting range with out empting its tanks as fast as afterburners would, which makes that ability usefull. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deathblow
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: Re: Thanks alot, Israel... |
|
|
| *[FOX]* Bort wrote: | | Israel likely has no greater friend than the United States, yet they were more than willing to export the design of the Lavi, a cancelled Israeli fighter funded by US bucks to the Chinese. Their new J-10 looks and performs an awful lot like the Lavi. Oh, Israel... |
This probably isn't as big a deal as it seems. Sure the frame and design of the two are problably modelled after each other, but remember that the potency/effectiveness of a fighter is more dependent on its internal packaging (electronics, weapons capabilities, targets, sensors, ECM, communication networking, passive stealth, etc) than on its frame. All similarly roled fighters have comparable engine performance. Its whats on the inside that counts.
I remember questioning my pops about this several times when I was growing up, since defense contracting of airforce electronic systems is what he does for a living, and he always mentioned that most of the time there were two versions of military systems. One for the US and one for exporting to other countries, with strict policies and auditing make sure what is shared isn't too important, which the assumption that that the techonology would eventually be exposed.
Probably doesn't really make a difference if the airframe or engine is compromised, as long as its not a revolutionary engine upgrade they don't already have, or the internal sensors and weapons isn't shared... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildcat
Joined: 10 Jan 2002
Posts: 438
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sounds like there's a lot of armchair piloting going on. If you think an F16 can't turn damn hard with fuel tanks on you're dead wrong. It may lose some of its maneuverability but it's still the most maneuverable aircraft in any branch of the US armed forces, with the F-18 being the next best thing. Well, maybe the F-22 is 2nd best now, but it still doesn't turn as tight as the F16. Nevertheless, even with fuel tanks on the F16 is extremely maneuverable and has no problem reaching +6g's with fuel tanks on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeepSix
Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 802
Location: DB22
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wildcat wrote: |
...
Well, maybe the F-22 is 2nd best now, but it still doesn't turn as tight as the F16. Nevertheless, even with fuel tanks on the F16 is extremely maneuverable and has no problem reaching +6g's with fuel tanks on. |
But I don't think that matters much to strategists at the moment. The emphasis these days seems to be - for better or worse - on tactical delivery of guided munitions (air to ground), not so much on dogfighting (air to air), based on the type of threats the US appears to face. Arguably, at the moment there's no other air force in the world that could go toe to toe with the USAF for air superiority, whereas there are plenty of threats from command and control bunkers, SAM sites, WMD labs, etc. - ground installations. Again, it's about the prevailing doctrine - sometimes it favors planes with more dedicated roles, others it favors multi-role planes.
Of course this is just my armchair speculation, but I think it would be interesting to see some sort of comparison between sorties and type of aircraft used in the First Gulf War and sorties/type of aircraft used so far in the Second. The First one marked a turning point in U.S. air strategy - it's been all about "smart bombs" ever since. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
