Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Russia working on MiG-31 replacement

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nake13
 


Yeah, that wasn't suspicious at all.

Speaking of that sort of thing, did you hear about the Chinese with the Su-33 (I'm pretty sure it was the Su-33)? *laugh* Similar to that. They claim that they didn't copy the Su-33, but despite not having any (and having a plane that looks EXACTLY like it), they can tell you what kind of fire control system, what electronics, what engines, etc are used in them.
edit on 4/16/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Sweet, i love russian aircraft they always look sexy. I heard they want to introduce this new aircraft from 2020 though so they better get a wiggle on!

nice thread



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper62
 


Russia does have one advantage over the US with aircraft development, and that's that they don't have 300 people in a meeting for one little thing like we do. So where the F-22 and the F-35 took and are taking 20 years to get operational, in Russia it'll take half that or less (if they can build it right in the first place).



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Yes the J-15,certainly looks like a back engineered SU-27K/SU-33,Aren't they kind of putting the cart before the horse there?,I would have thought that having an operational aircraft carrier would take precedence over the development of a carrier borne fighter,but I guess it is China we're speaking about after all!



posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by nake13
 


Yeah, you would think, but China is one of those countries I've seen put the cart in front of the horse many times, and yet it always seems to work out for them. They're sort of annoying that way.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
It will be interesting to see what they come out with. I wonder if they will be trying to significantly improve on the Mig-31 capabilities or if they will just be looking to build a plane with similar capabilities but more efficient and cost effective.
edit on 17-4-2013 by Strakha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strakha
It will be interesting to see what they come out with. I wonder if they will be trying to significantly improve on the Mig-31 capabilities or if they will just be looking to build a plane with similar capabilities but more efficient and cost effective.
edit on 17-4-2013 by Strakha because: (no reason given)


Well I assume theyd want to make it more well rounded, rather than just sacrifice every other flight characteristic for out and out speed like they did for the Foxbat



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Yes the J-15,certainly looks like a back engineered SU-27K/SU-33,Aren't they kind of putting the cart before the horse there?,I would have thought that having an operational aircraft carrier would take precedence over the development of a carrier borne fighter,but I guess it is China we're speaking about after all!



Yeah and you look at the Chengdu J20 and the Pak Fa head on, there's a lot of similarities there. Apart from the canards on the j20 and the larger wing profile of the T-50, I can see a lot in common. Surely they're not completely independant designs!

And isnt China's carrier almost finished now anyway? Like if there was a war they could use it I would assume?

I'm sure i read China and Russia were sharing tech and stuff anyway a couple of years back. It wouldn't surpise me, China want the tech, Russia need the money, neither want to see the US run away with the race for next gen weaponry. Either that or the intel was stolen. Now that would be a fascinating story..
edit on 17-4-2013 by Reaper62 because: Additional comment



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper62
 


Define use. As a heavy cruiser, which it kind of is? Sure, no reason they couldn't. As a carrier? No way in hell, and not for a long time yet.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Reaper62
 


Define use. As a heavy cruiser, which it kind of is? Sure, no reason they couldn't. As a carrier? No way in hell, and not for a long time yet.


Why not? They have a vessel they can put to sea, they have aircraft equipped to land on it, and in a wartime situation, it would be an asset they they might feel they needed. Sure, I can't think of any conflict that could occur which they would need it to launch fighters so far form their mainland, but if they did they could surely increase resource spent on getting the vessel ready for combat if they needed to? I was just saying in a wartime environment a country like China could divert significant resource to something like that if they wanted. Why couldn't they?

edit on 18-4-2013 by Reaper62 because: spelling



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I think in an outright war with the US or India or someone with a credible navy, then you might try to fly a strike package off of it. It'd be filed under "worth a shot". You'd struggle to get more than a few sorties off. There is no way they would be able to maintain flight operations off of it.
Simply sailing it somewhere means your opponent would have to react, so it might be useful to rob the USN of the initiative a bit. You'd have to decide that whatever heartburn and/or damage you might inflict on the USN would be worth losing your only carrier. Of course in a full on tilt, I imagine the US would be looking to remove that piece from the board early anyway.



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper62
 


Because landing one plane on a carrier, one time, does not an operational carrier make. They're years from a doctrine for using a carrier, and almost that long away from having a fully qualified carrier air wing. It takes US pilots months to qualify for a carrier the first time. The Chinese still have to build a battle group around it, find a mix of forces that works, decide what they want to do with it, etc. That takes years, even if they have been working on it for years, qualifications and all that fun takes awhile too.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by _Del_
I think in an outright war with the US or India or someone with a credible navy, then you might try to fly a strike package off of it. It'd be filed under "worth a shot". You'd struggle to get more than a few sorties off. There is no way they would be able to maintain flight operations off of it.
Simply sailing it somewhere means your opponent would have to react, so it might be useful to rob the USN of the initiative a bit. You'd have to decide that whatever heartburn and/or damage you might inflict on the USN would be worth losing your only carrier. Of course in a full on tilt, I imagine the US would be looking to remove that piece from the board early anyway.


Exactly. Use what you got, even if it only gives you one play, one advantage. And that could involve launching assets from their carrier. I'm not saying they definitely would do this, even if they were at war. but stranger things have happened....



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Reaper62
 


Except, not just any pilot can land on a carrier. They are still a long way away from operational.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Agreed, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Reaper62
 


Except, not just any pilot can land on a carrier. They are still a long way away from operational.


I hope you are right, because the Chinese government figures that they will have 4, not 1...4 operational carrier battle groups for 2020.

2 based around the 50-60,000t Type 89 (based on the Liaoning), and 2 based around the 90,000t nuclear powered types.

As you stated previously, China has a very irritating ability to put the cart before the horse and still succeed.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Reaper62
 


Except, not just any pilot can land on a carrier. They are still a long way away from operational.


A certain Lt. Col. didn't need to land his B-25's on a carrier to use them, either... You prepare for what your enemy is capable of, not just what you think he will do.

They aren't anywhere close to being operational or being able to project sustained naval airpower. But that wouldn't stop them from loading up a small strike package and telling them whatever the mandarin equivalent of "vaya con dios" is. In the event, I'd bet that the subs and carrier are targets #1 and #2 if the balloon ever were to actually go up. I don't know that they'd get the chance, but if it was me I'd sure as hell try it. What would you have to lose? You might catch someone napping.



posted on Apr, 19 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _Del_
 


Oh, I know. The point I was going for was just that they won't have an operational carrier for years not that they don't have a viable defense or anything. If they were to get into a fight requiring a carrier, they'd be hurting.









 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join