See China's new fighter jet in action

em2nought · 11-05-16, 04:43 AM

Didn't copy the F-35? Those Chinese are darned smart!

They probably don't have any Osprey clones either.

Von Due · 11-05-16, 05:21 AM

As for copying, well, that's been a thing since day one, hasn't it? In avation, it started in WW1. In 1944-45, everyone and their dogs had an me-262 clone in their hangar. With the F-15 on the drawing board, suddenly USSR saw the brillancy in dual engine-tail fins, Concordsky gave it it's best go, the Sabre against the Mig-15.

All this talk about 5th gen fighters and their use in BVR engagements though, is something that has me wondering. It appears that BVR might not be as useful as computer games would like to have us believe.

Various sources point out weaknesses in BVR. Weaknesses that ultimately means dogfights will still be what fighters will find themselves in. 3 of those weaknesses are
-There is still no technology available for long range ID of a target with sufficient reliability
-The weapons' tracking capabilities need to reach a level still not present in any weapon system
-The range and maneuverability of long range weapons means that
1) Outside the no escape zone, the target can with relative ease outfly the missile which has a very limited energy available
2) The no escape zone is close to, or within visual range.

It makes me wonder how successful heavy, not-so-agile (relatively speaking) fighters will be, whatever generation they may be, up against older more nimble designs more suited for close air duels.

Sources
http://navy-matters.blogspot.no/2012...it-useful.html
https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27...of-bvr-combat/

Now, read those sources any way you want but it's food for thoughts.

kraznyi_oktjabr · 11-05-16, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

By the way jim, the sparrow missile is a Aim-7. it's a medium-range semi-active radar homing air-to-air missile. I'm sure it was a typo.

Jim may correct himself if I misunderstood, but I think he was referring to AIM-7 Sparrow and RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. These have been mostly replaced by AIM-120 AMRAAM and RIM-162 ESSM (Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) respectively.

EDIT: Nevermind. Missed the second page...

Platapus · 11-05-16, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by em2nought

Didn't copy the F-35? Those Chinese are darned smart!

They probably don't have any Osprey clones either.

Crud. That was our strategic plan all along. I guess they were too smart to fall for that one.

There is still a chance they will fall for "Big Data" and "The Cloud".

Fingers crossed

Oberon · 11-05-16, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

"The Cloud".

Don't worry, Beijing has gone for "The Cloud" in a big way:

11-05-16, 04:43 AM	#1
em2nought Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 3,485 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Didn't copy the F-35? Those Chinese are darned smart! They probably don't have any Osprey clones either. __________________ em2nought is ecstatic garbage! Last edited by em2nought; 11-05-16 at 04:44 AM. Reason: forgot the battle avoided Osprey

11-05-16, 05:21 AM	#2
Von Due Sea Lord Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 1,690 Downloads: 30 Uploads: 0	As for copying, well, that's been a thing since day one, hasn't it? In avation, it started in WW1. In 1944-45, everyone and their dogs had an me-262 clone in their hangar. With the F-15 on the drawing board, suddenly USSR saw the brillancy in dual engine-tail fins, Concordsky gave it it's best go, the Sabre against the Mig-15. All this talk about 5th gen fighters and their use in BVR engagements though, is something that has me wondering. It appears that BVR might not be as useful as computer games would like to have us believe. Various sources point out weaknesses in BVR. Weaknesses that ultimately means dogfights will still be what fighters will find themselves in. 3 of those weaknesses are -There is still no technology available for long range ID of a target with sufficient reliability -The weapons' tracking capabilities need to reach a level still not present in any weapon system -The range and maneuverability of long range weapons means that 1) Outside the no escape zone, the target can with relative ease outfly the missile which has a very limited energy available 2) The no escape zone is close to, or within visual range. It makes me wonder how successful heavy, not-so-agile (relatively speaking) fighters will be, whatever generation they may be, up against older more nimble designs more suited for close air duels. Sources http://navy-matters.blogspot.no/2012...it-useful.html https://defenseissues.net/2013/04/27...of-bvr-combat/ Now, read those sources any way you want but it's food for thoughts.