Offtopic Shenyang J-31 versus F-35 versus Gripen slanging match

[Avimimus]

sigh why do 'we' always have too assume the 'other side' has been 'cheating' or creating derivative designs, a typical response unfortunately seen in more and more defence forums (id once hoped 'sp' would have been a bit more mature but alas the usual suspects never fail to denegrade and drown out the majority)

Have some of you not heard of convergent design evolution, and configuration design trends, of course we should expect similarities, i have seen the same over decades of aircraft development, its not dodgy copying or anything suspect, merly normal development

You can't possibly be this naive.

The first generation R-3 missile and the Tu-4 were copies... after that it gets vaguer.

It is an old Cold War mantra "The enemy is Communist, they lack independence, creativity and initiative, they can only produce copies of our engineering". But I see this as very hard to defend. The make-up of the aircraft, aerodynamic layouts, aviation doctrines all are divergent. The designs and tactics have little in common.

It might well be right to say that a lot of industrial espionage has aided the Chinese, but it is still hard to maintain the idea that this is all that China is capable of.

 

[sferrin]

sigh why do 'we' always have too assume the 'other side' has been 'cheating' or creating derivative designs, a typical response unfortunately seen in more and more defence forums (id once hoped 'sp' would have been a bit more mature but alas the usual suspects never fail to denegrade and drown out the majority)

Have some of you not heard of convergent design evolution, and configuration design trends, of course we should expect similarities, i have seen the same over decades of aircraft development, its not dodgy copying or anything suspect, merly normal development

You can't possibly be this naive.

The first generation R-3 missile and the Tu-4 were copies... after that it gets vaguer.

It is an old Cold War mantra "The enemy is Communist, they lack independence, creativity and initiative, they can only produce copies of our engineering". But I see this as very hard to defend. The make-up of the aircraft, aerodynamic layouts, aviation doctrines all are divergent. The designs and tactics have little in common.

It might well be right to say that a lot of industrial espionage has aided the Chinese, but it is still hard to maintain the idea that this is all that China is capable of.

There are so many examples with China that you'd have to be delusional to think they haven't got their hands on actual engineering files. Goalkeeper, RAM, F-22, F-35 come to mind. The J-20 uses the same canopy the F-22 does right down to the mechanical bits around the perimeter. To claim it's simply "convergent evolution" is just plain blind ignorance.

 

[Evil Flower]

And that's different than every previous aircraft competition how exactly?

It's different because back in the day competition was between prototypes that were more or less representative of the service aircraft, not 'tech demonstrators' that have little in common with the service aircraft other than general configuration.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

sigh why do 'we' always have too assume the 'other side' has been 'cheating' or creating derivative designs, a typical response unfortunately seen in more and more defence forums (id once hoped 'sp' would have been a bit more mature but alas the usual suspects never fail to denegrade and drown out the majority)

Have some of you not heard of convergent design evolution, and configuration design trends, of course we should expect similarities, i have seen the same over decades of aircraft development, its not dodgy copying or anything suspect, merly normal development

You can't possibly be this naive.

No sometimes people have the exact same idea but one has it a few years later after a second look or two

Convergent design in action:

Very similiar

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

And that's different than every previous aircraft competition how exactly?

It's different because back in the day competition was between prototypes that were more or less representative of the service aircraft, not 'tech demonstrators' that have little in common with the service aircraft other than general configuration.

What days were those back in?

 

[chuck4]

During the days of F-15 and F-14, which not only bypassed the demonstrator stage, but also bypassed the prototype stage and went directly to pre-production stage.

I also can't help the feeling that the Chinese (probably also Russians) put more emphasis on upstream engineering compared to the post coldwar American military aviation complex, so they can cut their development cycle shorter than ours.

 

[sferrin]

sigh why do 'we' always have too assume the 'other side' has been 'cheating' or creating derivative designs, a typical response unfortunately seen in more and more defence forums (id once hoped 'sp' would have been a bit more mature but alas the usual suspects never fail to denegrade and drown out the majority)

Have some of you not heard of convergent design evolution, and configuration design trends, of course we should expect similarities, i have seen the same over decades of aircraft development, its not dodgy copying or anything suspect, merly normal development

You can't possibly be this naive.

No sometimes people have the exact same idea but one has it a few years later after a second look or two

Convergent design in action:

Very similiar

Check out these virtually identical designs:

 

[sferrin]

so they can cut their development cycle shorter than ours.

It helps when you've got the other guy's completed homework and source files at hand. : Seriously, how stupid does one have to be to not see a brazen rip-off artist at work?

 

[AeroFranz]

we're getting into name calling. everybody take a chill pill.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

During the days of F-15 and F-14, which not only bypassed the demonstrator stage, but also bypassed the prototype stage and went directly to pre-production stage.

And we only lost a quarter of the f-14 force thanks to the engines. Good deal

 

[chuck4]

so they can cut their development cycle shorter than ours.

It helps when you've got the other guy's completed homework and source files at hand. : Seriously, how stupid does one have to be to not see a brazen rip-off artist at work?

If you are ahead, people will rip you off so as to catch up to you sooner. That's the rule of the game. No use bitching about it. It doesn't mean they are stupider or less capable then we are. It just means they will do whatever it takes to finish the work that took us 20 years in 10.

15 years ago, they were still stuck of making minor modifications to early model Mig -21s. In the following 15 years they've advanced at least 30 years beyond that. Kudos to them for making excellent use of what is available to them to achieve what they want to achieve. Demerits to us for making some that available to them without getting anything in return.

 

[chuck4]

During the days of F-15 and F-14, which not only bypassed the demonstrator stage, but also bypassed the prototype stage and went directly to pre-production stage.

And we only lost a quarter of the f-14 force thanks to the engines. Good deal

That's got nothing to do with pushing F-14 straight into pre-production. It has more to do with the whole program being cut back so the intended F100 derivative engine meant for F-14 were never installed, and the residual of the F-14 program having to make do with the unsuitable and underpowered TF-30 handed down from its diseasterous F-111B ancester for almost its entire existence.
.

 

[sferrin]

so they can cut their development cycle shorter than ours.

It helps when you've got the other guy's completed homework and source files at hand. : Seriously, how stupid does one have to be to not see a brazen rip-off artist at work?

If you are ahead, people will rip you off so as to catch up to you sooner. That's the rule of the game. No use bitching about it. It doesn't mean they are stupider or less capable then we are. It just means they will do whatever it takes to finish the work that took us 20 years in 10. They would only really be stupid if they didn't rip us off.

I guess you're not seeing the significance of having the other guys' enginering data and source files in hand. Ah well.

 

[chuck4]

I see the significance. But how many countries in the world can make an F-22 clone even if the entire set of drawings are packages with a bow and given to them on a platter?

They made lots of progress. They didn't choose to reinvent the wheel. But they closed the gap faster than we thought possible. That's what they are suppose to do.

 

[Evil Flower]

And we only lost a quarter of the f-14 force thanks to the engines. Good deal

Or the days of the A-4, F-4, F-8 and the A-7 - all of which turned out to be complete worldbeaters. Even the YF-16 prototype wasn't much different from the F-16A and needed comparatively minor fixes to go into service. Certainly not like how the F-22 turned out to become almost a whole new design with rather little in common with the YF-22 other than general arrangement or how the X-35 likewise was a mere "tech demonstrator" with apparently few things in common with the actual F-35.

 

[sferrin]

And we only lost a quarter of the f-14 force thanks to the engines. Good deal

Or the days of the A-4, F-4, F-8 and the A-7 - all of which turned out to be complete worldbeaters. Even the YF-16 prototype wasn't much different from the F-16A and needed comparatively minor fixes to go into service. Certainly not like how the F-22 turned out to become almost a whole new design with rather little in common with the YF-22 other than general arrangement or how the X-35 likewise was a mere "tech demonstrator" with apparently few things in common with the actual F-35.

I trust you don't know the difference between an "X" designator and a "Y"?

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

1st was the F-14A, which was not supposed to be the production version but ended up being the version most produced. Then there was the first F-14B, which was supposed to be the production version with a number of changes, the biggest of which was the F401 engine. It never entered production. Then there was the F-14C, that designation was used a number of times but originally was to be an F-14B with new avionics. It was never built. Then there was the F-14A+, which is basically an F-14A with some improvements, most imp[ortantly the GE F110 engine which finally allowed the F-14 to perform as it was designed to do, and was considered a stepping stone to the definitive Tomcat. The F-14A+ was then redesignated the F-14B. Following that, it would seem appropriate for them to use the F-14C designation again, since no F-14C ever flew, but they skipped "C" and went to "D".

So I guess you could call having to wait twenty years for the full potential to be reached and in the mean time losing about a quarter of the force a success. The modern version would probably be holding out for engines but having fewer tomcats in the end because of that. I know the engines sucked, And Im obviously a tomcat fan... but lets just say I don't recall "the good old days" of jet aircraft crashing prototypes and killing pilots and then going with an interim engine that of course became a permanent solution and stuck with some tomcats all the way to the end of service. Maybe things changing is good.

The Tomcat also had 11 of 12 prototypes crash and killed test pilots... I have a sneaky suspicion that those would be intolerable levels of loss for a modern design in testing so maybe things are taking longer, but getting safer. Im ok with this!!

On the F-16

C/D introduced greater capabilities and more importantly much improved avionics over the Falcon A/Bs, which were basically day VFR WVR fighters. The importance of the avionics upgrade can be inferred from its sales relative to the F/A-18. The F/A-18A/B, whatever else you might say for or against it, was a more flexible aircraft that the -16 A/B and this reflected in the exports achieved. I believe I am accurate in stating that when the -16A/B competed with the -18A/B it never won, but when the Falcon C/D competed with the Hornet C/D, it never lost. The need for the F110 class engine was driven by the weight growth of the Falcon. Basically, it didn't add new performance as much as it restored the agility of the aircraft back to what it was in the days of the early A/Bs. The exception was the F-16N, which married the weight of the F-16A to the thrust of an F-110 engine. Those that got to fly it didn't stop grinning for days!

If you would like we could put the F-35 in production now ok, but no complaining about all the upgrades that will be needed almost immediately and if it crashes you cant be mad.

 

[Evil Flower]

Please, the F-16 was intended from the beginning to be a simple day dogfighter and at the time had no need for extensive strike capability since the USAF was operating the A-7, F-111 and F-4 in those roles.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Please, the F-16 was intended from the beginning to be a simple day dogfighter and at the time had no need for extensive strike capability since the USAF was operating the A-7, F-111 and F-4 in those roles.

Could it be that more complicated machines of higher quality take longer to produce?

 

[chuck4]

I think the problem is the procurement system doesn't reward emphasis on upstream engineering.

Basically, money spend meticulously thinking through and working out the design before you submit the proposal won't pay because:

1. The specification could change while you are doing it

2. The other guy could bluff his way past your meticulous work by superficially hitting some key benchmarks

 

[sferrin]

Please, the F-16 was intended from the beginning to be a simple day dogfighter and at the time had no need for extensive strike capability since the USAF was operating the A-7, F-111 and F-4 in those roles.

And was virtually useless until it got BVR and PGM capability. Out of the gate it couldn't even self-designate.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Please, the F-16 was intended from the beginning to be a simple day dogfighter and at the time had no need for extensive strike capability since the USAF was operating the A-7, F-111 and F-4 in those roles.

And was virtually useless until it got BVR and PGM capability. Out of the gate it couldn't even self-designate.

I miss those days. The ol' lawn dart