All chinese aircrafts are pathetic copies

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Pakistan's Chinese made J-6s shot down 12 Indian aircraft while only losing 3 in a battle. .

WAs that all in one engagement?! Im curious to know the odds..I don't debunk the above statement..I've heard of it before..but wan't sure if it was in one battle..

The aircraft became better known than its prototype MiG-19 after involving several air combats in the 1960s. On 5 June 1965, a J-6 flew by the PLA Naval Air Corps pilot Gao Xiang shot down a USAF F-104C Star fighter near Hainan Island. During the 1965 India-Pakistan war, the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) J-6 fighters shot down a total of 12 Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft, including one MiG-21 fighters, eight Su-7 fighters, and three British-made Hunter fighter-bombers, with only three J-6s being lost in the battle.


www.sinodefence.com...

warlord, you never accept indian sources on claims of indian's aircraft's.

now on the same lines, can i ask for a more neutral source.

china should be ashamed of itself. Even Taiwan can make their own airplanes, WITHOUT COPYING.

CHING-KUO (IDF) INDIGENOUS DEFENCE FIGHTER
The Taiwanese Ching-Kuo Fighter is developed and manufactured by the Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation based in Taichung. The aircraft is also referred to as the Indigenous Defence Fighter (IDF). The Ching-Kuo is an all-weather, multi-role fighter and is built in one-seater and two-seater configurations.

The programme to develop the aircraft, known as the An Hsiang or Safe Flight programme, started in 1982 with identification of the requirements for an air-superiority fighter. The rollout ceremony of the first prototype took place in December 1988, when the aircraft was named after the late President Chiang Ching-Kuo. The Ching-Kuo made its first flight in May 1989.

Ching-Kuo air superiority fighters have been operational in the RoC Air Force of Taiwan (Republic of China) since January 2000 and the last of a total of 130 entered service in July 2000. AIDC is developing an upgrade package which includes a digital cockpit and an upgraded radar.

WEAPONS
The aircraft has an integrated avionics and weapons control system.

A 20mm M61A Vulcan cannon is installed on the starboard side of the fuselage with a Photo-Sonics gun camera.

The aircraft has six hardpoints for carrying external stores, with two under the fuselage, one under each wing and one at each wingtip. The Tien Chien I (TC-1) or Skysword I short-range and the Tien Chien II (TC-2) or Skysword II medium-range air-to-air missiles are supplied by the China State Arsenals. TC-1 has a range of 5km and has an infrared seeker. TC-2, with a range of 60km, has active radar guidance and is armed with a high-explosive warhead weighing 22kg.

For ground attack, the aircraft can be armed with rocket pods, bombs, cluster bombs or air-to-surface missiles such as Maverick. The fighter is also being adapted to carry the TC-2A air-to-surface anti-radiation missile, which uses both active and passive radar guidance. TC-2A is being developed by the Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology in Taipei. Anti-ship missiles such as the Hsiung Feng II, similar to the Israeli Gabriel missile and supplied by the China State Arsenals, can be carried on the fuselage or underwing hardpoints. Hsiung Feng II has a range of 80km, carries a dual-mode active radar and imaging infrared (III) seeker for terminal guidance and is armed with a 225kg semi armour-piercing, high-explosive warhead. Three Hsiung Feng II missiles can be carried - one under the central fuselage and one under each wing.

FUSELAGE
The airframe design was developed under the YingYan or Soaring Eagle programme. The aircraft is of shoulder-wing monoplane (single-wing) design, incorporating composite structure materials. The aircraft is built to withstand 9g loading.

COCKPIT
The pressurised and air-conditioned cockpit has a Martin Baker Mark 12 zero zero ejection seat and a single-piece bubble canopy. The cockpit is equipped with three multifunction displays and a head-up display.

AVIONICS
The Tien Lie or Sky Thunder programme covered the development of the avionics. The design of the avionics suite is configured in line replaceable units (LRU) to allow for system growth and the easy upgrade of systems as new technologies become available.

The aircraft uses a BAE Systems (formerly Lear Astronics) fly-by-wire control system and a Northrop Grumman (formerly Litton) inertial navigation system.

RADAR
The aircrafts radar is the Golden Dragon CD-53. The multi-mode pulse Doppler radar has look-down, shoot-down capability and can operate in air and sea search mode. The radar has a range over 80 nautical miles.

ENGINE
The TFE1042 engine has been developed by the International Turbine Engine Corporation (ITEC), a joint venture between the Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) and AlliedSignal. The programme to develop the engine was named Yun Han or Cloud Man. The engine, weighing 1,360lb, delivers 41.1kN maximum thrust. The modular-designed engine has full digital electronic controls.

The kidney-shaped air intakes are mounted low on the centre section of the fuselage, and the two engines are mounted side by side at the rear of the fuselage. The inspection schedule calls for a 2,000-hour hot section and 4,000-hour cold section inspection intervals. The fuel consumption is 0.81lb per hour per pound of thrust.

The aircraft is equipped with a variable speed constant frequency electrical power generator, which is supplied by Westinghouse.

SPECIFICATIONS - CHING-KUO (IDF) INDIGENOUS DEFENCE FIGHTER, TAIWAN
Dimensions
Length 46 ft 7.3 inches
Width 30 ft 10.78 inches
Height at tail 15 feet 6 inches
Engines
Turbofan engines two TFE1042
Thrust 41.1KN maximum thrust
Weapons
Integrated avionics and weapons control system.
Guns A20 mm M61A Vulcan cannon
Camera Photo-Sonics gun camera.
Short range air to air missiles Tien Chien I (Skysword I)
Medium range air to air missiles Tien Chien II (Skysword II )
Anti-ship missiles Hsiung Feng II
Air to surface missiles Maverick
Others Rocket pods
Bombs
Cluster bombs

The Ching-Kuo firing a Tien Chen (Skysword) air-to-missile.



The Ching-Kuo's TFE1042 engine weighs 1,360lb and delivers 41.1kN of thrust.



The multi-role fighter can be armed with air-to-surface, air-to-ground and anti-ship missiles, as well as rocket pods, bombs and cluster bombs.

wow, that's pathetic.

We all know that China is 100 percent a Western creation. A few times a year military and industrial "secrets" are stolen (sold or given) and massive Western investment is funneled into the country.

It won't last forever. I think it's a deliberate ruse that the NWO is setting up about a military battle between the US and China. The real goal was to implement their socialist vision, and so when the trade deficit becomes untennable and a crash ensues, there will be chaos everywhere in this "globalized" economy of ours.

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by W4rl0rD

Pakistan's Chinese made J-6s shot down 12 Indian aircraft while only losing 3 in a battle. .

WAs that all in one engagement?! Im curious to know the odds..I don't debunk the above statement..I've heard of it before..but wan't sure if it was in one battle..

The aircraft became better known than its prototype MiG-19 after involving several air combats in the 1960s. On 5 June 1965, a J-6 flew by the PLA Naval Air Corps pilot Gao Xiang shot down a USAF F-104C Star fighter near Hainan Island. During the 1965 India-Pakistan war, the Pakistani Air Force (PAF) J-6 fighters shot down a total of 12 Indian Air Force (IAF) aircraft, including one MiG-21 fighters, eight Su-7 fighters, and three British-made Hunter fighter-bombers, with only three J-6s being lost in the battle.


www.sinodefence.com...

I can confirm this source...not in terms of numbers but in terms of the type of aircraft involved and the fact that in this particular engagement the PAF coming out victorious..
But then again this was not by all means an"even- steven" engagements..
Many other factors were involved... which I will be willing to disclose if anyone is interested..
And btw Stealth Spy , I confirmed your "Chuck Yeager-IAF POW story of 1971"..its 100% legit..I spoke to one of the POWs myself..Yeager interviewed only 2 IAF pilots and that too for findnig out data on the Su's..they had no data on the Su's then the USAF..

It makes sense though. You take a country with limited resources that cannot afford to spend billions on R&D, they copy what is already proven to be successful. Happens in business every day. America has the money to spend on R&D, it is why we are always a step ahead of the other countries of the world. The technology that is being copied or built under license is actually old technology so it really does't matter. America has so much more than you realize that is in development or currently in black projects, so why would anyone care. I say let China or anyone else copy or build whatever they like. They will always be decades behind America in technology. After all what use is a ballistic missile that will never reach its target? We will just knock it out of the sky. When the F117 was made public in '91 it had already been in our arsenal for a decade or longer. Imagine what America has now that no one knows about! Remember the UFO sigthings over Iran? The Black triangle sightings over the rest of the world? Care to venture whose flag they are under?

All this nationalistic jingo on who copies who is tiring, everyone takes a look at other nations technology, look at the US, using Russian SA-10 systems to improve Patriot. They've also flown captured or procured Russian aircraft since the 40's or 50's to see what makes them tick. Just because nations use licencing, reverse engineering or other less known chicanery to start up their aviation industry or to improve it doesn't make it less valid. You do what you have to do to survive.

Stealth Spy:

This is from Globalsecurity.org:

-----------------------
Taiwan produced the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter with extensive assistance by American corporations, led by General Dynamics. The project consisted of four sub-projects. They were the Ying-yang project (in cooperation with General Dynamics Corporation) which made the air-frame; the Yun-han project (in cooperation with Hughes Corporation), which designed the engine; the Tian-lei project (in cooperation with Westinghouse Company), which took care of the avionics system; and the Tian-chien project, which developed the weapons system.

The twin-engine IDF is similar to the F-16 except that it is slightly smaller and has a slightly shorter range. The IDF is a hybrid as far as its external appearance is concerned. The nose of the fighter jet is a replica of the F-20A Tigershark, while ts body, wings, and vertical tail surface are apparently lifted from the F-16, and the shape of its cockpit hood and vertical tail wing and its girth near the engine inlets have a notable French flavor.
---------------------

How you can claim that the Taiwanese fighter was NOT copy is beyond comprehension, as you can read, the IDF copies the F-20A and the F-16 extensively which is not surprising considering the amount of American help it had.

That quote is global securities opinion, not indisputable fact. Global security are not the arbiters of such things, look at their 'picture of Be-10 Mallow' page and you will instead see a picture of Be 12 Mail, they are far from infallible.

The Chung Kuo has a hell of a lot of input and influence from General Dynamics but no part of its airframe is lifted straight off another aircraft. The wings aren't even the same shape as an F-16's as they feature tapered leading and trailing edges while the F-16 wing is virtually a delta. The front fuselage looks nothing like the front fuselage of an F-5, which is wat the F-20 used, or the X-29, which also used the F-5 front fuselage.





[edit on 1-3-2005 by waynos]

Originally posted by waynos
That quote is global securities opinion, not indisputable fact. Global security are not the arbiters of such things, look at their 'picture of Be-10 Mallow' page and you will instead see a picture of Be 12 Mail, they are far from infallible.

The Chung Kuo has a hell of a lot of input and influence from General Dynamics but no part of its airframe is lifted straight off another aircraft. The wings aren't even the same shape as an F-16's as they feature tapered leading and trailing edges while the F-16 wing is virtually a delta. The front fuselage looks nothing like the front fuselage of an F-5, which is wat the F-20 used, or the X-29, which also used the F-5 front fuselage.
[edit on 1-3-2005 by waynos]

Ok, assuming everything you have just said is correct.

Where do we draw the line at "Copying"?
Is copying something less then 10% not copying? 20%, 30%?

BTW, i only posted my above message because i think that this whole topic is quite "pathetic", i doubt that any airplane can be completely original, (exceptions might include the jumps between biplane-triplane-jet plane).

In fact, i probably blame myself for posting and reviving this topic

You don't need to assume anything, compare the pictures I posted for you

You raise an interesting point about copying but I think its more to do with perception by the observer, in this instance anyway.

The assertions about the Chung Kuo are made by someone with only a skimpy knowledge of aircraft, clearly. They are taking a superficial similarity and calling it a copy.

The J-7 is clearly a copy of the MiG 21, it is exactly the same. You could use MiG 21 components to repair a J-7.

The Super 7 is no longer a copy of the MiG 21, the reason being that to develop it china worked on improving the J-7, not copying something else.

The J-10 cannot be called a copy of either the F-16 (because it just wasn't)
or the Lavi. The reasons being that (a) there ARE actually too many differences if you really compare the two types closely and (b) IAI (co designers of the Lavi with General Dynamics and owners of the design copyright) actually worked with the chinese on the j-10 and so gave permission for the closeness of the design, in these circumstances you cannot have 'copied' your own work (IAI).

For illustration take the Harrier II. Would you say MDC copied the Hawker Siddeley Harrier? If you would then you are wrong as HSA were full partners in the programme to improve their own design so MDC were there by invitation as it were, just like the Chinese and the J-10.

Then there is 'influence'.

My example here is the Tu-160 bomber. It shares the planform of the B-1, but is clearly not a copy of it. It is bigger, it is fundamentally different in its tubular fuselage compared to the B-1's fully blended design, it can though be said to have been influenced by the apprearance of the B-1, to return to my J-7 analogy, you could not repair a Tu-160 with a bit of a B-1.

This is not a bad thing, it has happened in aircraft design ever since the Wrights first took to the air and Henri Farman and Glenn Curtiss figured out how to make a similar design that worked a bit better.

Here endeth my essay on copying, hope it was'nt too boring.

Originally posted by flailer
wow, that's pathetic.

We all know that China is 100 percent a Western creation. A few times a year military and industrial "secrets" are stolen (sold or given) and massive Western investment is funneled into the country.

It won't last forever. I think it's a deliberate ruse that the NWO is setting up about a military battle between the US and China. The real goal was to implement their socialist vision, and so when the trade deficit becomes untennable and a crash ensues, there will be chaos everywhere in this "globalized" economy of ours.

I'm suprised noone commented on this. You are aware that China does have a history that dates back as far as ancient Egypt correct?

Well, to say that china is 100 percent a western creation, would be foolish.

China moved on to become Westernized during the time of Imperialism of the British, Russians, Germans, Americans, and all those other happy nations.

China however, is communist, and communism was never a western idea, so to say China is 100 percent a western creation, is just absurd.

And what you seem to misunderstand is that right now, a war between the US and China, is just insane, China will not go to war with the US unless Russia does, and that won't happen for quite a while. And I think the NWO organization has alot more to worry about, umm... like, actually becomeing a REALITY. There are way too many powers in the world for the NWO to take full action in anything.

Those are my ideas.

Shattered OUT...

The Chung Kuo was developed by the makers of the F16 and F18

- Philip

Japan's F-2 is also another F-16 copy

the japanase say its an F-16 inspired creation by mitsubisthi

Originally posted by waynos

Ok......so basically it is a mix between a F-18,a F-16,and a F-5?

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
warlord, you never accept indian sources on claims of indian's aircraft's.

now on the same lines, can i ask for a more neutral source.

PAF’s engineers and technicians carried out a number of indigenous modifications and improvements to make the F-6 more effective and enhance its roles of air superiority and ground attack. The major upgrading and innovative modifications include the provision of western avionics, Martin and Baker ejection seats, the AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missile, French 68 mm rockets, additional under wing tanks and under-belly ‘Gondola’ fuel tanks and a special ground-power unit for instantly starting its twin engines to shorten ‘scramble’ time.

PAF’s expertise on the F-6 was fully tested during the 1971 Indo-Pak War. Its three F-6 squadrons, Nos 11, 23 and 25 gave an excellent account of themselves: flying 945 sorties comprising 735 hours and destroying numerous enemy tanks, armoured cars and field guns during the close support missions. In air combat, F-6 pilots shot down eight Indian Air Force fighter aircraft including a superior MiG-21 and damaged five.

On 04 December, Flight Lieutenant Javed Latif of No 23 Squadron shot down an SU-7 while it was attacking the PAF airfield at Risalewala. Its pilot Flight Lieutenant Harvinder Singh was killed in action. On 04 December, Flying Officer Qazi Javed of No 25 Squadron shot down an Indian Hunter when it came to attack PAF airfield at Mianwali. Its pilot Flight Lieutenant Vidya Dhar Shankar was also killed in action.

On 05 December, Wing Commander Saad A Hatmi, the Officer Commanding of No 25 Squadron and his Number two, Flight Lieutenant Shahid Raza chased two IAF Hunters and shot them down close to Sakesar. Their pilots Flight Lieutenants G.S. Rai and K.L. Malkani were both killed in action.

On 07 December, Flight Lieutenant Atiq Sufi of No 11 Squadron shot down an IAF SU-7 near the battle front at Samba. Its pilot Flight Lieutenant Jiwa Singh was killed in action.

On 08 December, Wing Commander S. M. Hashmi, Officer Commanding of No 23 Squadron shot down two IAF SU-7s which were attacking Risalewala airfield.

On 14 December, Flight Lieutenant Aamer A Sharif of No 11 Squadron engaged a superior IAF MiG-21 and after a classic battle, shot it down near Niankot.

All three squadrons received battle honours for the 1971 War, while three F-6 pilots were awarded gallantry medals.


www.defencejournal.com...

Where does the F-5 come into it anywhere?, It isn't a copy of any of them, I give up, I should take more notice of my sig

Its nothing like them,but then again the cockpit section looks like an F-5's,the fuselage a F-18's and the tail wing like a F-16's.

The one area of it that looks like it came off another design is the flattened spines that run along each side from the trailing edge of the wing and onto which the tailplanes are mounted, that is the same arrangement that the f-16 uses. Thats it. A very trivial base for the 'copy' claim but clearly a sign of General Dynamics design input.

If you can see a likeness to anything on another part of the airframe then I am wasting my time on people who only see what they want to see. I would hate to be relying on you for aircraft ID in a combat situation.