+fifth+Generation+Stealth+Fighter+Jet+from+its+flight+plaaf+pakistan+air+force+paf+(9).jpg.jpg)
Tell me again that the F-35 is....well you know the rest!
On a different note, one thing has me a bit confused/mystified. Why haven't the Chinese turned to doing anything with their armored vehicles? If its about new designs then BAE, General Dynamics, Iveco, and the Russians have some stuff out that should get their attention.
So if they're not duplicating, designing or in general upgrading existing vehicles then why not? Could that be the canary in the coal mine?
Build up your naval and air forces to beat down the door...and when we suddenly start seeing new armored designs entering service that's the clue we need that they're getting ready to strike?
I don't know but the lack of attention on their army is puzzling.
For all the rise of China talk that I engage in, we all need to remember what the Vietnamese did to them. They thought they were ready -- a rising and dominant power -- only to be defeated handily by a determined and focused nation.
The 1978 Sino-Vietnamese War was a shock to them, but the fact is that China invaded them at the worst possible time. The Vietnamese were battle hardened from war with the Japanese first, then with the French, and finally a really brutal one with us. In fact, by the time China invaded they had some of the most battle hardened soldiers on the planet.
ReplyDeleteCHina did not fight the 300,000 + Vietnamese regulars that were reserved for teh defense of Hanoi.
DeleteMost of what China fought was irregular militia and guerilla units. ANd considering the tough time they had with those explains why they were ready to sh!t themselves before going any further against the veteran units.
Too bad the J-31 is for export only. Aerodynamically, this thing is actually superior to the F-35 and Shenyang did its homework. My hats off to SAC.
ReplyDeleteWhat the F-35 would look like today if the JSF program did away with STOVL.
without STOVL the JSF program woouldn't be. and that's the rub of it all. it didn't save a bit of money and it makes no sense to force aircraft that operate differently to share the same airframe.
Deletethat includes a lightweight land based fighter and a carrier variant.
so STOVL isn't the issue. the issue is the concept of one airframe and three variants.
The problem is the airframe should ahve been for max performance first and STVOL technology adapted to it after.
DeleteInstead the airframe seems more adapted to accomodate the STVOL ability, to the detrmiment of the non-STVOL types performance.
The compromises all went in the wrong direction. Now we have a STOVL that is limited by the inherent nature of STVOL aircraft and non STVOl types also being held back.
The mistake was building the airframe for the marines and allied small carriers when it should have been designed for the US mainstay and CATOBAR carries.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think STOVL came first. Wasn't the original plan for the JSF :
Delete> a US Marine STOVL aircraft that could operate from marine's ships for CAS and Ground attack.
> limited stealth for initial phase and then 'bomb' truck thereafter
> remove the STOVL bits and put blanking plates over the gaps to give the USAF a cheapish replacement for F16s so they could spend lots $$$ on F22s and other high end aircraft (stealth/supersonic bombers, etc.).
Then the following happened:
- USN joined the program (I believe political pressure was applied) after the failure of their carrier aircraft (A12 Avenger II ?) development (late, overbudget, etc.). USN requested (!) a conventional carrier variant.
- USAF saw F22 (late, overbudget, etc.) stopped without any follow on programmes so added more 'fighter' requirements to improve it's ability to survive without supporting air superiority aircraft.
the above two aircraft were meant to provide air cover for the JSF to operate in (e.g. like F15 does for F16).
So USN and US piled in their requirements, which required pretty much a complete redesign of the aircraft - so a 'enhanced' fig?ter (USAF) and carrier variants (USN) grew out of the STOVL?
You're correct in the mistake was to view 'joint' as a cheap solution to three aircraft requirements - but joint was in vogue at the time as a buzz word by politicians for saving money, military for saying it's more useful that a single mil arm piece of kit, industry for saying how advanced it would be and increase production numbers for increased 'pork'.
The F35 is late/overbudget mainly due to the changes (like eurofighter also suffered because of the constant examination of requirements, etc.) - but this seems normal for government contracts all over the place.
For all those who say the F35 should be cancelled and each air arm is allowed to go an get their 'own' aircraft - how are you going to make sure it's also not overbudget and late? Re-design the whole of government procurement doesn't seem to be an option!
For all those who are
Frankly armor just isn't important to China's future conflicts.
ReplyDeleteWith 1.3 billion people who is gonna fight them on the ground anyway? Aside from India no one else can, as long as their armor is better than India's they are perfectly fine.
China is looking towards fights in the air and at sea where China has usually had its problems.
Also, armor really isn't that useful if you don't have air superiority. How much armor did Iraq have? How little did it matter? They became burnt out decorations on the highway of death because of airstrikes.
Likewise, I don't see the US having a chance against the Chinese by aquiring new armor even with lots of it. We need planes to beat anything the CHinese have like the legacy fighters beat their russian counterparts. It's either that or accept we have no hope in any war.
Sol, Chinese armor is separated into 2.5 branches.
ReplyDeleteThe best as of now is the Type 99G, for domestic use only, 1,500HP engine, with about 500 in service
Then you have the Type 96G, with about 2,500 in service. Sights aren't as good, smaller engine at only 1,000HP, smaller tank. Some have been exported to Sudan of all places.
Then you have the Export only MBT-2000/ Al-Khalid / VT1A - Exported to Morocco, Bangladesh, Burma, Pakistan (where it is locally produced). it is being upgraded to the MBT-3000 version with better turret armor and better sights. It isn't as well protected as a T-90A, but it is about 1 million dollars cheaper, with an average selling price under 3 million dollars, as compared to 4 million for the T-90A.
APCs, both wheeled and tracked, and IFVs, haven't been huge sellers, but the newer models have been bought in small numbers by African nations and Venezuela and Bolivia.
oh, and here is a link to the MBT-2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Khalid_tank
Delete