Stig1207, Ivan, I am replying on this thread so as to avoid continuing to derail this one.
"Stretch or not strech" of aircraft designs
- Thread starter spicmart
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Found this article about the P51 Mustang
https://www.dau.edu/library/arj/ARJ/arj56/Haggerty_ARJ56.pdf
https://www.dau.edu/library/arj/ARJ/arj56/Haggerty_ARJ56.pdf
The quotes from the books were that there were 23,555 fighter sorties by Italians from North Africa in 1942, of which 30% were flown with Macchi C.202. There are other mentions that the numbers of Macchi C.202 in North Africa averaged about 30-70 in any month in NA.
Let's examine these numbers for whether they are "credible" or not.
30% of 23,555 sorties is 7067 flown by an assumed AVERAGE availability of perhaps 50 Folgore over 365 days.
That works out to about 0.39 sorties per aircraft per day. That means each available aircraft is flying only one sortie every two or three days over an entire year.
If the average total number of fighters of various types available to the Italians was below 150, then the general sustained rate of sorties would have to be higher. If the total number is HIGHER, then the rate of sorties is even lower than one every two or three days.
To me this seems believable.
- Ivan.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Hmmm, not sure why Schweiks post got included in my reply.
Yup the J-8II (I don't have a picture of one!), they even got US help with the avionics and glass cockpit etc, but Tiannanmen Square in 1989 put paid to foreign assistance and the project lagged. The Chinese then focussed on developing the J-10 fighter and acquiring manufacturing of the Sukhoi Su-27 as the original J-8 design was by the early 90s a bit old and even though it had entered service, it was no match for the US fighters being supplied to its allies in Japan, S Korea and Taiwan.
Does it mention stretching the fuselage or extending the wings?
That is interesting as I would have assumed the Su-27 wasn't so far behind 90's era US fighters (maybe barring the F-22)
You seem to know a lot about PLA warplanes. What is your assessment of their current air fighting capabilities?
Also another question. to all you jet guys... I remember when I was in the military in the 80's the fighter doctrine seemed to rely heavily on active radar illumination, and the merits of one fighter vs. another in large part was measured on the strength of the radar and the range (and to a lesser extent, reliability) of their missiles. We were reminded of the need for guns in Vietnam, but confidence in the missiles increased as their capabilities and performance grew... look down radar, fire and forget capability, active homing and so on.
But now days in the era of "stealth", dangerous air defense systems like the Russian S-400, AEGIS with SM-2, PAAMS etc., the enhanced capability of passive sensors (and distributed sources) and the presence of pilotless UCAV, swarms etc., is it still standard doctrine to even turn the active radar on early and often in an air combat against another top tier opponent?
Meanwhile the Russians seem to be focused on hypermaneuverabilty, which is an interesting shift consdering the flight characteristics of aircraft of earlier generations like the MiG-25 or the Su-15. Seems like now they are back into more of a MiG 15 / MiG 17 type philosophy...
But now days in the era of "stealth", dangerous air defense systems like the Russian S-400, AEGIS with SM-2, PAAMS etc., the enhanced capability of passive sensors (and distributed sources) and the presence of pilotless UCAV, swarms etc., is it still standard doctrine to even turn the active radar on early and often in an air combat against another top tier opponent?
Meanwhile the Russians seem to be focused on hypermaneuverabilty, which is an interesting shift consdering the flight characteristics of aircraft of earlier generations like the MiG-25 or the Su-15. Seems like now they are back into more of a MiG 15 / MiG 17 type philosophy...
Aww ta. I know nothing more than what can be found out through usual sources. Regarding China's modern capabilities, I'd be worried! The Chinese are playing catch up rather quickly and although this might mean qualitatively they don't have an edge yet, numerically they build very quickly what they have. The J-20 is an impressive achievement not to be scoffed at, but it is still hampered by the engine manufacturers not being able to get the big power out of the Lyulka Saturn based engines, so they are flying around with lower powered engines than they were designed for. Also, we don't really know anything about its avionics, nor its exact weapons carriage capabilities. It is also only 'stealthy' from the front on aspect, look at those big exhaust nozzles. Nevertheless, it is a threat not to be dismissed in the long run.
Continuing production and development of the Tu-16 bomber is something that still surprises the west, but the latest variant, the H-6K is a capable cruise missile platform, which in operation from the disputed Nine Dash Line islands the Chinese have built would pose a serious threat to any hostile navies in the region. Again, avionics for these aircraft are not known comprehensively, but it's safe to assume the Chinese have perfected miniaturising digital electronics, so it's probably best not to presume too much.
The best use for a former nuclear bomber I've seen - the centrepiece for a go-cart track! Xian H-6.
The Sukhoi Su-27 production was done quickly and was based on fighters acquired from the Ukraine, which meant manufacture was done without Sukhoi expertise, which means quality is not up to standard and allegedly the navy is having issues with serviceability within its carrier air wings as a result.
The J-10 is a formidable indigenous fighter that is so easily overlooked, but is an impressive achievement for China, and yes, it was developed with Israeli help from their cancelled Lavi programme, it is a bigger airframe developed primarily within China and being available in numbers means it would be a considerable threat to any country pushing into China's Sovereign borders.
The J-10.
As for the old MiG-21 developments the Chengdu J-7, it is still in service in large numbers, with upgrades, such as improved radar, digital avionics and glass cockpit etc. Yes, the Chinese armed forces are still lumbered with equipment based on 1950s and 60s technology, see the Ming Class Type 035 submarines based on the Soviet Romeos, but upgrades and proliferation in numbers mean there are lots of combat capable assets available and ready for action. This is unlike the former Soviet Union, where a large portion of its older fleets of ships and aircraft have been left to rot, but are still sitting about.
Type 035 submarine. These are still in service.
By the way, all these photos included with these posts are mine.
That is such a common story in aircraft design, eh Shortround6?
Considering how much US electronics the Chinese have been manufacturing in recent years and the pre-eminence of firms like Huawei in certain important tech fields...
This kind of echoes old Soviet Tactics from the Cold War era, if you can't afford Aircraft carriers, the alternative is fleets of more or less mediocre bombers (and a few more impressive ones) festooned with dozens of very fast, very potent cruise-missiles. I was always struck by how fast the Soviet cruise missiles were, the Russian ones still are, compared to ours. Certainly not so easy to shoot down a missile that goes mach 2.5 or faster even with a good air defense system, let alone one of the hypersonic types.
Fantastic!!!
Perhaps this may not be the most cheerful place I don't know, but the kids who live tehre have the best go-cart track in the world. Only way to make it better would be route the cars through the plane.
Last edited:
I should add that where Chinese development is rapidy accelerating is in its missile and rocket technology. They have been evolving cruise missiles since undertaking production of the Soviet Termit missile as the Silkworm, and have successfully developed supersonic ship and air launched cruise missiles, which is a concern. Their ballistic missile technology is also to be feared. The latest Dong Feng 31 long range ICBMs have ranges of over 8,000 kilometres and are capable of carrying MIRVs, so they are not being left behind in strategic capability - China's ballistic missile force is larger than Britain's and France's.
From this - Silkworm...
Silkworms
To this - HY-3 supersonic cruise missile.
DSC_5199
DF-31 in its carrier.
Military Museum 11
Bear in mind the Chinese started like everyone else developing rockets with copies of the A-4 V 2.
From this - Silkworm...
To this - HY-3 supersonic cruise missile.
DF-31 in its carrier.
Bear in mind the Chinese started like everyone else developing rockets with copies of the A-4 V 2.
It kinda works though, it's a cheap(er) and effective means of power projection. Look at Russian heavy cruisers of the Soviet era, they crammed missiles all over their big ships giving them a formidable capability. It's only natural the Chinese would go down this path; the US carrier fleet is an astounding capability, but one that has its vulnerabilities, such as a massed attack by supersonic cruise missiles launched from sea and air assets combined. Not to mention their sheer expense, which means only the US can really field such a force in numbers.
Does mention as a stretch using another engine..changing it from a CAS Dive Bomber into a the best full fledge fighter manufactured.
The Stretch of a stagnant Logistics and Procurement process that ignored the Mustang.
Did you read it?
Plus it's all very old, kind of like Battleships in the 30's, and we are having a ton of procurement problems with our newer stuff that is supposed to be the next gen
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
