- Joined
- 27 December 2005
- Messages
- 17,003
- Reaction score
- 22,148
If you mean the visible smoke trail, that's typically happening in mil power for RD-33, it burns cleaner in afterburner.Afterburner for a 20 degree climb?
If you mean the visible smoke trail, that's typically happening in mil power for RD-33, it burns cleaner in afterburner.Afterburner for a 20 degree climb?
Everyone does that(3rd, 4th gen experience).But if China is being smart about it, they will be starting work on their 6th Gen design more or less as soon as J20s reach IOC. Maybe FOC.
USA didn't after 5th Gen.Everyone does that(3rd, 4th gen experience).
However, it takes time to properly understand what the next generation is, and there is a big risk of committing too early (euro canards).
I do not think that we will be seeing Chengdu's 6th Gen just yet siegecrossbow as they are far too busy with J-20 production at present. Perhaps towards the end of the decade we might see the 6th Gen fighter starting to make an appearance.
USA does those literally non-stop. NGADs(both of them) didn't materialize out of thin air.USA didn't after 5th Gen.
The Euro Canards are 4th gen aircraft, but took far too long to reach IOC.
At the end it was just a 2g 500ft demo... Not much to show to the crowd.If you mean the visible smoke trail, that's typically happening in mil power for RD-33, it burns cleaner in afterburner.
Charateristic of most Chinese air dispalys is it not? They hardly ever do the level of stunts employed by say the Russians so I would not have been expecting a serious role demo from them - especially not a brand new type.At the end it was just a 2g 500ft demo... Not much to show to the crowd.
Still the roll sensitivity to gusts was noticeable.
I have no doubt whatsoever that they'll get there before the US. Seems the USAF is taking a page from the USN. (As in they wouldn't know what to do with a Golden Goose if someone gave it to them.)Watch this space, imo.
Not making any predictions here, but its emergence might be a bit earlier than what past conventional estimates have reasoned.
As the plane passes show center, you can see the smoke trail disappear and visible AB flames during the pull up and short shallow climb sequence. Back to Mil power w smoke trail as it levels off.If you mean the visible smoke trail, that's typically happening in mil power for RD-33, it burns cleaner in afterburner.
I don't know that he had to do that. it's like the airshows we have where they wait until they are near the crowd and then they hit the AB just for noise/display.As the plane passes show center, you can see the smoke trail disappear and visible AB flames during the pull up and short shallow climb sequence. Back to Mil power w smoke trail as it levels off.
This was a comment on the apparent need for AB just to maintain speed under this non-challenging maneuver.
I am surprised at that BLACK_MAMBA, I would have thought that the PLAAF would have been desperate to show off their new fighters especially to the outside world.
It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the pastNo lol.
The PLAAF (and PLA as a whole) are generally quite subdued. They don't reveal or confirm the existence of new platforms unless they're at a sufficient state of readiness, and even when they do they don't show us anything "useful" or "interesting".
One of the early cardinal learning points for the PLA is that they generally don't show off or brag about anything of substance.
Last couple weeks they've been spamming Reddit like a MF.It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the past
Feels like recent YEARS to me......positive side is they are more open on photographic informationLast couple weeks they've been spamming Reddit like a MF.
It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the past
The US started designs of F15 more or less as soon as F4s were in full service. The US started designs for ATF as soon as F15s were in IOC. Then the US sat on starting the generation following F-22 for damn near 20 years.USA does those literally non-stop. NGADs(both of them) didn't materialize out of thin air.
Eurocanards have all the traits of "pre-stealth 5th generation". Not as ambitious as US/Soviet projects/prototypes, perhaps, but this isn't important.
Let's say that they had designed, developed and put into service a next gen followup to the F-22 during those whole fake-GWoT years, what do you think that aircraft would've ended up doing and looking like? Do you think the condition of that environment, under which they would've developed the doctrine based on their expectations for the next couple of decades, allowed for a design that is better suited for the war within the 1.5IC-2IC that the US Aviation has unexpectedly found itself in our reality than the F-35?The US started designs of F15 more or less as soon as F4s were in full service. The US started designs for ATF as soon as F15s were in IOC. Then the US sat on starting the generation following F-22 for damn near 20 years.
Pre-ATF studies for F-22 only became known way later, in 2000s. It's simply too early, and one of the reasons we don't get any program of them is b/c they failed to justify the cause.The US started designs of F15 more or less as soon as F4s were in full service. The US started designs for ATF as soon as F15s were in IOC. Then the US sat on starting the generation following F-22 for damn near 20 years.
Interesting to see that the F-35's grooved and bumped belly design is not repeated here, even though the aircraft seem to occupy similar sizes, roles, and joint capability (navy/airforce), albeit with an extra engine for the Chinese
the f-35 is shaped around one single ginormous engine and pretty aggressive range requirement for its sizeInteresting to see that the F-35's grooved and bumped belly design is not repeated here, even though the aircraft seem to occupy similar sizes, roles, and joint capability (navy/airforce), albeit with an extra engine for the Chinese
the f-35 is shaped around one single ginormous engine and pretty aggressive range requirement for its size
Lift fan(or any other supplementary lift solution for the matter) doesn't change all that much when it isn't there.Also the lift fan behind the cockpit. Even if not present on the -A and the -C.
Engines are visible moved back as far as possible; two also helps with flatness (albeit at cost of more volume overall). That's the answer.Interesting to see that the F-35's grooved and bumped belly design is not repeated here, even though the aircraft seem to occupy similar sizes, roles, and joint capability (navy/airforce), albeit with an extra engine for the Chinese
Do we have at least approximate bay sizes?
emm….no? Before socialmedia there were magazines and televisions, neither of those are reachable by foreigners. CCTV has a freaking Channel specifically dedicated to this.It used to be, but the trend seems changing, with the PLA PR actively posting various activities of the current up-to-date fighting force, which was unthinkable in the past
VTOL requirements dominate the design of any air vehicle. Hence the F-35B influenced the layout, aerodynamics, structures etc of all three versions as the requirement on the JSF program was a common, or as common as possible airframe. Thus the F-35A and C versions are significantly compromised in terms of what their aerodynamic performance could have been. J-35 is effectively what F-35A and C should have been without the VTOL compromise.Lift fan(or any other supplementary lift solution for the matter) doesn't change all that much when it isn't there.
This stovl/ctol pair with little additional compromise was with us since Convair model 200.
F-35's compromises are very specifically result of combination of a short plane (ship hauling), big engine with intakes, and two very deep 2000 lb- capable bays, everything having to be parallel due to the length limit.
If B is guilty of something criminal, it's F135 upgrade paths. But not before.
Engines are visible moved back as far as possible; two also helps with flatness (albeit at cost of more volume overall). That's the answer.
They don't, it's a (wrong) public "common sense". VTOL looks so different, VTOLs tend to fly worse - we have found the witch. Can we burn her?VTOL requirements dominate the design of any air vehicle.
They weren't compromised by the B version in any single way. I didn't bring up the Convair model 200 experience for nothing - it was a a very specific program that specifically showed that a combination of CTOL and VTOL doesn't require compromises.Thus the F-35A and C versions are significantly compromised in terms of what their aerodynamic performance could have been.
Aero layout of f-35a compromised for neither of the variants. Just look at yf-17 and fa-18. A good carrier fighter have every reason to be good on the land as well.The main troublemaker for the JSF program, though, is indeed the least common one of the 3 - you're right here. But it's the CATOBAR C version. Not B.