good thing the al-41 isnt a variable bypass engine(at least anymore), the variable bypass variant for the al-41 never went into service.
4 Likes
gimballing an aesa radar seems like useless complexity for china.
But you said that
Obviously, if AVIC had any intention of equipping its fighter jets with a gimbaled AESA radar, the J-10A’s mid-life upgrade program would have been a far more suitable candidate. The aircraft originally featured a mechanically scanned radar, and its power supply and cooling capacity were likely insufficient to support a high-power AESA system. Instead, they developed an air-cooled AESA radar to conserve cooling power for greater detection range, rather than opting for wider scanning coverage.
4 Likes
Maybe, but all of my claims are just generalised to the trends and research towards PLAAF attitudes, it’s possible that they are employing Gimballing-AESAs but my point is that there isn’t a consensus there about whether or not they intend to mass produce any.
And generally the PLAAF/PLANAF are utlising fairly similar styles of fixed angled plates on all of their aircraft. As with all things China, we’ll see what the future brings
No, they are entirely unsourced as of yet. You’ve provided zero credible sources to back your claims or arguments.
1 Like
So the PLAAF have actually been using TVC engines and gimballing ESA radars all along? New info to me; You’re asking for sources of basic common sense, stop being a midwit lol.
Why does the WS-10 engine series not have a TVC nozzle, despite compatability,
Why have the Chinese not brought more Su-35s (since you seem to hold it as the gold standard),
Why have the TVC projects and testing performed by the PLAAF not been acted on in your eyes?
Justify your position before asking for sources
2 Likes
You are the one who is throwing claims around as well, under the blanket that the stuff you are saying is the opinion of the PLAAF, while all you are doing is speculating what their reasons are but not having anything to back it up
1 Like
@ron_23 if you choose not to accept common logic then go ahead, the maintainance cost/performance benefit ratio is too small for the PLAAF to care for mass introduction of TVC yet, that’s not some bogus claim like you are trying to portray it as, it’s basic reasoning when looking at the current fleet, WS-10 discourse, future projects, testing of TVC on WS-10, having access to the AL-41s, Chinese research papers, etc.
TVC is in the cards for modernising the J-20 and new 6th gen development, but I never stated anything to dispute that.
@MiG_23M begging for sources when you are infamously poor at providing your own is pretty rich, this all arcs back to what I said yesterday about not falling for the bait, too late for that ig
2 Likes
Rich coming from you isn’t it?
So what’s china’s hypothesis?
That reduced maintenance cost reduces drag?
You only picked up the maintenance cost point after @MythicPi made that argument, after you dismissed the exact same argument when @MiG_23M made it
just because they dont use it does not mean its inefficient. it probably just means that they dont want to spend too much money.
You did no research, and presented none. The lack of a thrust vectoring nozzle on a combat aircraft is not an indication that they are a bad design choice or perform poorly. Instead of an honest argument you are doing exactly what you claimed I would… arguing in bad faith.
4 Likes
That is literally what I told you, and you said it was nonsense.
You asked for numbers, I showed you that they are all over google… easy to find or search for. You had insinuated that you’d done the research at that time and yet clearly that was not the case. So I asked you to back up a claim and instead of doing so, you start contradicting yourself by using my claim against your assertion… against ron? This makes no sense. We need to study your thought process / mental gymnastics here.
The USA is one of the few countries in the world with a defense budget large enough to use advanced technologies that increase maintenance costs.
1 Like
Is this the pl-15e with folding fins?
There seem to be two variants of PL-15E, one with folding wings and one without.
2 Likes
Yeah ik. I’m just wondering whether the 145km figure corresponds to folding wings or the non folding wings one
To be fair, that engine is still seems to be a generation ahead of the best Chinese engines, the ws-15. And it was built in the 90s. Does the ws-15 feature a variable bypass?
Id guess there’s no difference in range, one is just designed with folding fins to fit in internal bays easier
There’s no visual differences apart from the fins.
But AVIC used the non foldable fins one in the post with ~145km range claim
3 Likes
j11B has PL8B and PL5EII but can it use R73 ? cause J11 uses them at 13.0 ?
no
the J-11 is a Su-27SK, while the J-11B is a complete redesign of it
J-11B is a reverse engineered J-11 w/ modifications, not a redesign in any way. All they did at that point was develop domestic replacements for existing parts and minor improvements in a myriad of places.
1 Like