All chinese aircrafts are pathetic copies

page: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   
there.. I thought as much those engagements were separate instances..
and most took place at risewala..but as one can observe the attacking force takes more a2a casualties in a air base raid while the defenders losses are mostly on the ground..
care to see how many PAF planes were dusted at risewala on the ground??..


To check out another great a2a feat for a "defending" was performed by flt officer Sekhon in a gnat who managed to get his GNAT off the ground DURING a air raid and then engaged as manyas 6 PAF sabre jets ..
Although he managed only to damage two( who left the scene immediately), he kept the 6 sabres occupied long enough to allow other defending aircraft to get airborne and thus drive the attackers away..

Imagine a single jet engaging 6 at one time...even a trained pilot wouldn't last for over a cpl of minutes..
(Picture the end sequence of "top Gun" where Iceman is hounded by 5 MiGs when Maverick enters the zone)

Also in this case it was a GNAT up against sabres(6)..and a GNAT is quite inferior to a sabre.. its like a single F-16 up against 6 F-15s..
(PArdon me Waynos if my analogy is not quite accurate
)..


[edit on 4-3-2005 by Daedalus3]




posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
Its ok, I'll let it go this time



posted on Mar, 4 2005 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Japan's F-2 is also another F-16 copy

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

The F-2 is an F-16 inspired creation, there are significant differences.

Ok, lets do this, how about we base an aircraft ON IT'S PERFORMANCE????

God, you pay so much attention to the cosmetics of an aircraft, it's sickening.

Who cares if it looks like another aircraft or not? Can it fly, can it fight?

Look, please, just concentrate on the performance, ok? It's alot better this way, because hearing people go on and on about aircraft being copies, it's just annoying, are we children? "Tearcher, he copied my drawing!" That's what a 5 year old would do, that's what we are doing.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Yes - China does either A) Gain the licence of an existing aeroplane or B) Reverse Engineer a plane that they can buy.

But isn’t this a smart thing to do? They at the moment are not the leading aerospace designers like America and Russia are (despite what many of you might think) but by copying, imitating and buying existing designs they are able to learn more about their enemy and other existing aeroplanes.

This to me seems fairly smart.

From being able to understand how your opponents systems work you can then make planes that ‘iron out’ any of the flaws, make anti-aircraft systems that can target these flaws in the systems, so on and so fourth.

This can in turn put them in a better position then any Nation that would take the ‘We are superior’ view of their Armed Forces because China‘s acknowledging that others hold better systems and are coming up with ways to counter this.

Yet, instead of using your ‘brains’, and looking at the positives you make it out to be a bad thing. How is copying to A) catch existing designs up and B) to build systems to counter your enemy, a bad idea? To me, it’s actually a good thing and I’m glad China’s taking this view of its Armed Forces.

As for them copying the Humvee, that was wise. It has been in service for how many years now? And isn’t being replaced? It’s a damn good vehicle and does the job well. So China have been smart enough to copy it, which would cost next to nothing and ‘churn’ them out on a production line - outfitting their army quickly. Yet again, a smart thing to do.

Maybe people should drop this ‘superiority complex’ that they’ve developed and look at why the Chinese do this and what they get from it.

Also with the JXX now in development, we might get to see an ‘indigenous design’ coming out of China. By the looks of things, they've already been able to catch up with existing Russian and American aeroplanes (excluding the F-22 and the Su-47) so maybe they might make their first leap into attempting to lead the way?

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Odium]



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Better steal something right, than make something bad yourself...right?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

As for them copying the Humvee, that was wise. It has been in service for how many years now? And isn’t being replaced? It’s a damn good vehicle and does the job well. So China have been smart enough to copy it, which would cost next to nothing and ‘churn’ them out on a production line - outfitting their army quickly. Yet again, a smart thing to do.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Odium]


GM sold Dong-feng motor corporation the licence to produce the hummer, so really the Chinese are building it perfectly legally and are not "copying/stealing"



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Thank you, Lucretius. Never found that out or seen that piece of information before now.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
No problem


Who says the Americans don't sell the Chinese arms



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Chinese Humvees.....::::shakes head:::: the world is coming to an end



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Chinese Humvees.....::::shakes head:::: the world is coming to an end

I could have told you that much.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Chinese Humvees.....::::shakes head:::: the world is coming to an end


Then again China is also dependent on US trade. There is no way the US could embargo China without crushing their industry as well.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Chinese Humvees.....::::shakes head:::: the world is coming to an end


Just to humor our friend here...





posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
That looks pretty awesome.... BTW didn't DONGFENG or w/e car company in China, get a license from GM to produce the hummer?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
yes I just stated that



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
No problem


Who says the Americans don't sell the Chinese arms

Arms USA sold to China is 3 times than EU in 2004.
Who want to make trouble with money?



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   
The US does Reverse Engineering of other countries military hardware too (to look for exploitable flaws, improvements to curent designs, ect). Back when Sparta had one of their buildings on campus, some of us would go over at night to see what they were bringing in to reverse engineer (It's amazing how fast things like fighters can be unloaded off flatbeds when you have a limited satellite blackout window). Why try to reinvent the wheel, if you have it right infront of you? (improve upon it yes, reinvent it no)



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
Then again China is also dependent on US trade. There is no way the US could embargo China without crushing their industry as well.


China needs the US for survival, but the US dont need china.
US outsource manufacturing to china because of cheap labour.

with the emergence of democratic, friendly, non-violent, dignified outsourcing destinations (like Thiland, Phillipines, India) US can dump china anyday any time.

Dont forget china is communist (the worst ever form of government)



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:12 AM
link   
i agree. The F-2 is not a copy, but a product of collboration. but its NOT ORIGINAL

HISTORY

The FS-X's origins can be traced back to the early 1980's and the highly secretive Laboratory Three division of Japan's Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI). There, studies were being carried out to investigate the options for an indigenous design, combining long range with maneuverability, to meet the particular requirements of the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF).

It became clear that the pursuit of a completely indigenous design was unrealistic, and help was to be sought abroad. In October of 1987, the Japanese government announced that it was going to develop a derivative version of the F-16C known as the FS-X, to replace the JASDF's Mitsubishi F-1 support fighters, which were to be phased out of active service in the second half of the 1990's.

The program was launched in November 1988 with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the governments of Japan and the United States, and marked the first joint fighter development program between Japan and the United States. The fighter was to be used exclusively by the Japan Air Self Defense Force and therefore development was completely funded by Japan. Primary missions of the new aircraft were be sea lane protection, beach defense and anti-invasion.

The FS-X (Fighter Support Experimental) is being developed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries as prime contractor with Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems, Kawasaki Heavy Industries and Fuji Heavy Industries as principal subcontractors. Development workload has been split approximately 60/40, with the Japanese partners responsible for the larger share.

STRUCTURE & AVEONICS

The FS-X is quite similar in appearance to the F-16, but structural modifications include:

Japanese-designed co-cured composite wing of greater span (1.7m wider) and root chord, with slightly less leading edge sweep. The composites give the wing added strength while reducing the weight;
increased span tailplane;
slightly reshaped and enlarged radome and forward fuselage (fuselage length has increased by 0.5m);
slightly altered Leading-Edge Root Extensions (LERX).

Overall, the FS-X is substantially larger than the F-16, resulting in a maximum take-off weight of 49,000lb, compared to the F-16C's 42,000lb, although both are powered by the same 129kN (29,000lb)-thrust General Electric F110-129 turbofan engine. Other FSX structural-design changes include radar-absorbent material (RAM) applied to the aircraft's nose, wing leading-edges and engine inlet, the use of titanium in the tail and fuselage, the addition of a braking parachute and a two-piece canopy reinforced against large bird strikes.

The primary difference, although less conspicuous than the structural modifications, between the FS-X and the F-16 is in the use of Japanese domestic technology for much of the avionics, including:

a new Mitsubishi Electric (Melco)-designed active phased-array radar comprising 800 3W gallium-arsenide transmit/receive modules;
Yokogawa LCD multi-function display (MFD);
Shimadzu holographic head-up display (HUD);
internal Mitsubishi Electric integrated electronic warfare system;
Japan Aviation Electronics laser inertial-navigation system backed-up with four conventional gyros;


Japan has also been forced to develop its own fly-by-wire software by the US Government's refusal to release the F-16s computer source codes. The FS-X's software is based on MHI's control-configured vehicle (CCV) research program flown in the early 1980's using a modified Mitsubishi T-2 trainer.



Lockheed Martin's participation in the production of the Japan Air Self Defense Force's new F-2 fighter officially began in October 1996, with the award of a $75 million contract from the F-2 prime contractor, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI). The contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems (LMTAS) of Fort Worth, Texas. LMTAS was the principal U.S. subcontractor during the development phase of the FS-X, and will continue to have major involvement in the production of the aircraft.

"Lockheed Martin has had an outstanding relationship with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and with the Japan Defense Agency during the development phase of the F-2, and we look forward to continuing that relationship as we enter into production," said Don Jones, the Japan F-2 Program Director at Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems. The initial contract award represents the beginning of what should be over $2.5 billion in contracts awarded to Lockheed Martin during the 15-year program.

Lockheed Martin will produce all the aircraft aft fuselages, all the wing leading-edge flaps and 8 of 10 left-hand wing boxes for the FS-X prototypes. The work will be performed at the company's Fort Worth plant, where it is expected to provide about 700 jobs at peak. Lockheed Martin is also providing all of the Stores Management Systems, some of the avionics support equipment and all of the data entry electronics units for the F-2.

Lockheed Martin has received extensive data on Japanese manufacturing processes during the aircraft development phase, as the result of two-way technology transfer agreements. The company will manufacture the F-2 wing boxes from composite materials using unique cocuring methods transferred to the United States by Japanese industry. Transfer of this technology started in 1990 with material testing.

Specifications

Engine: One General Electric F110-GE-129 turbofan, rated at 17,155 lb.s.t. dry and 28,984 lb.s.t. with afterburning.

Performance: Maximum short-endurance speed: Mach 2. (1315 mph) at 40,000 feet. Maximum sustained speed Mach 1.1 (725 mph) at sea level.

Dimensions: wingspan 35 feet 5.2 inches, length 50 feet 11 inches, height 15 feet, wing area 414 square feet.

Weights: 21,000 pounds empty, 26,450 pounds combat, 48,720 pounds maximum takeoff.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It seems to me on this thread that so many indian guys don't like the facts Chinese is catching up faster and better than them .......Why? It cos 1962?..


[edit on 28-3-2005 by wfliu]



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   
China is inferior to India in terms of air power...but catching up nonetheless..althought the recent F-16/superhornet deal will tilt the balance in the favour of the Indians again..





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join