Naval and Defense News

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Dysta »

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Seriously; what I would give to know what Gen. Carlisle knows about that missile...[&o]
Nothing. But that doesn't mean the general is trying to play fool for himself. He surely have reason to raise concern (and attention to increase budget from congress for their next-gen BVRs) about PL-15.

And now I finally have little clue what PL-15 might be:
http://www.popsci.com/chinese-air-to-ai ... af-general

A 0.2m diameter of kinetic-kill BVR missile ranged between 150-200km in guess estimate, that is no doubt a longer range than AIM-120D, and 2/3 range of the retired Phoenix. However, it can be a totally different animal since it is a kinetic missile, rather than HE warhead used by both AIM-120 and PL-12 series.

The "concern" that general raised isn't just by its estimated superior range, but the absence of explosive warhead makes it both lighter and pack more fuel. The Hard-kill capability already demonstrated since the reported news of HQ-16, which is directly went through the target drone without explode itself.

If such of estimation is true, then you may expect the US is playing the bigger game in return.
User avatar
xavierv
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:33 am
Contact:

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by xavierv »

Official: France Announce Egypt Will Acquire the 2 Mistral Class LHDs Originally Intended for Russia
The French presidency just announced that Egypt will acquire the two Mistral LHDs originally intended for Russia. "President of the French Republic met with the President Abdel Fattah Al Sissi. They agreed on the principle and terms of the purchase by Egypt of two Mistral class amphibious vessels" according to the official statement of the French presidency.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=3114
Hongjian
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:11 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Hongjian »

ORIGINAL: Dysta

ORIGINAL: Hongjian

Seriously; what I would give to know what Gen. Carlisle knows about that missile...[&o]
Nothing. But that doesn't mean the general is trying to play fool for himself. He surely have reason to raise concern (and attention to increase budget from congress for their next-gen BVRs) about PL-15.

And now I finally have little clue what PL-15 might be:
http://www.popsci.com/chinese-air-to-ai ... af-general

A 0.2m diameter of kinetic-kill BVR missile ranged between 150-200km in guess estimate, that is no doubt a longer range than AIM-120D, and 2/3 range of the retired Phoenix. However, it can be a totally different animal since it is a kinetic missile, rather than HE warhead used by both AIM-120 and PL-12 series.

The "concern" that general raised isn't just by its estimated superior range, but the absence of explosive warhead makes it both lighter and pack more fuel. The Hard-kill capability already demonstrated since the reported news of HQ-16, which is directly went through the target drone without explode itself.

If such of estimation is true, then you may expect the US is playing the bigger game in return.

Very interesting. Sounds like a long-range CUDA of some sort (minus the compact size). Seems like the missile we assumed to be the PL-12C was actually the PL-15 all along. This more or less fits to the prevalent rumors of the last few years, that a "Sino-AIM120D" of some sort was developed, featuring dual-pulse engine, AESA seeker and enhanced ECCM capabilities.

This is what the usually quite reliable aggregator has to say:

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogsp ... s-iii.html
It was reported that 607 Institute has been developing a new active radar homing AAM (dubbed PL-15?) comparable to American AIM-120D and may have evolved from the earlier PL-12C/D design. The missile was seen being tested onboard a J-11B fighter. Compared to PL-12, the missile features stabilizing fins and tailfins with reduced wingspans, suggesting its design is optimized for internal carriage by the 4th generation fighters such as J-20 and FC-31. PL-15 also features an improved guidance system (including duplex datalink and new active/passive dual mode seeker with enhanced ECCM capability). The missile is thought to have a new dual pulse rocket motor in favor of a ramjet engine, giving it not only a longer range (~200km?) but also a relatively small body size. It appears PL-15 has superseded the PL-12 series as the primary LRAAM for the 4th generation stealth fighters. The latest rumor (September 2015) claimed that PL-15 was test-fired successfully from a J-16.

The dimensions of that recent Chinese military BBS leak says:

目前国内某203mm弹径,4m长,重200kg(其中发动机140kg,其他部分60kg)的空空导弹。
采用了全球最领先的变推力(可调推力)固体燃料发动机。这种发动机,领先于单室双推力和双脉冲发动机
(美国AIM120改进型)不少。难怪美帝要追赶PL15的射程(看完本文献就知道为啥了)


203mm diameter, 4m length, 200kg weight (140kg rocket engine, 60kg is the rest).
Powered by a dual/"variable" thrust (双推力/变推力(可调推力)固体燃料发动机) , dual pulse solid-fuel rocket engine (双脉冲发动机).

That leaker proceeded to post a bunch of research papers detailing the kinematics of the variable thrust engine (and the cited dimensions are also from that paper):

http://lt.cjdby.net/thread-2076218-1-1.html
http://www.docin.com/p-111733678.html

Seems like the ramjet rumors are describing a completely different missile in development, and not the PL-15 that was recently launched from the J-16.

From the research papers, there are no indications of a ramjet engine, but indications that with certain thrust settings and an high-arc ballistic trajectory (where the missile flies to an altitude of 35km), the missile may even reach 320-400km slant range! The other infos in that research paper are really detailed and it takes quite a bit time to understand everything, but everything sounds quite incredible.

I'm no researcher, but that paper look legit and many of such revelations, such as the Wu-14 Hypersonic Glide Weapon that was tested 5 times in recent years, were first leaked via similiar research papers being made public by major leakers "suddenly discovering and reposting them on military forums"...
User avatar
AlGrant
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:38 am

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by AlGrant »



Looks like Egypt buying French build warships (formerly destined for Russia) has been agreed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34335224
"President Francois Hollande and Egypt's President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi "agreed on the principle and the terms of the acquisition"

Image

GOD'S EYE DISABLED.
User avatar
AlGrant
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:38 am

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by AlGrant »


The Military Balance in a Shattered Levant:
Conventional Forces, Asymmetric Warfare & the Struggle for Syria

http://csis.org/files/publication/150615_Nerguizian_Levant_Mil_Bal_Report_w_cover_v2.pdf

Some interesting reading and useful for anybody looking for current info on countries in the Eastern Med.
Interesting graphic on estimated coverage of Syrian SAM coverage (Pg 44)
The regions surface-Surface rockets/missiles (Pg 82,83,84)
Includes assessment of current Iranian Naval assets (pg 53).
WMD (Pg 99)

Perhaps some good scenario info!


GOD'S EYE DISABLED.
User avatar
NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by NakedWeasel »

Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
User avatar
NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by NakedWeasel »

Textron AirLand Scorpion Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=WL&v ... 7dSo#t=235

I keep hearing more about this aircraft that sounds like it could replace the A-10, through the employment of high-tech weapons. In this video they mention the G-CLAW...
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
User avatar
wild_Willie2
Posts: 2934
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by wild_Willie2 »

There are two main reasons why the AF want’s to retire the A-10. Firstly, the planes are getting old and every year that they fly they require more and more expensive maintenance and hard to come by parts. Secondly, in a conflict with a peer adversary the A-10’s design role as low and slow CAS plane will no longer be survivable. (This last argument was already proven during GW1 when A-10’s where forced to fly and attack from medium altitude as they were getting shot up by Iraqi ground fire while flying low and slow).

A-10 supporters on the other hand are arguing that the A-10 is such an effective CAS asset compared to the alternatives because it has a big gun and can fly low and slow in order to spot targets better. I agree that watching A-10 ‘s making gun runs against insurgents and mud huts in Afghanistan might look and sound impressive but this is not high intensity CAS but mere low intensity anti-insurgency work. The low and slow flying part is also not really a bonus for the A-10 but is a pure necessity as the planes only caries very basic sensors and thus needs to fly low and slow in order to spot its targets and to use its raison d'etre (its gun).

As the A-10 was designed to knock out armor before the advent of PGM’s, it was built around the GAU avenger cannon and it’s cockpit was armored with a titanium bathtub as to survive the flak gun saturated 70’s and 80’s battlefields. So every times it flies these low intensity anti-insurgency missions it carries around these unnecessary legacy design features ((4,029 pounds (1828 kg) for the gun and another 1100 pounds (550 kg) for the titanium cockpit armor). Weight that in a more modern design can be used for extra weapons, fuel and sensors.

People always describe the armor and gun as essential for the work that the A-10 does, but most of the anti-insurgency work in Afghanistan and Iraq was done by F-16’s and I never heard anybody complaining about their anti-insurgency performance or that they are falling out of the skies like flies because they have no titanium cockpit armor to protect them.

Realistically, with the advent of modern sensors, cheap drones and small precision guided munitions, any advanced trainer with modern targeting and communications capacity can do this low intensity anti-insurgency work cheaper and as good as or even better than the A-10 does now. So I personally can understand why the AF wants to retire an old, expensive and inefficient legacy airplane, designed for a specific mission in the 1970’s which is no longer survivable today and instead has to be used for general missions which new or even contemporary AC like the F-16 can do cheaper and just as well or better.
In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.
Glenn Beasley
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:10 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Glenn Beasley »

In response to to the Wild_Willie2 post about the A-10 there are good points in it,Here are my thoughts the F-16 is a Good Multirole Fighter type A/C but it only has one engine and its Gliding Characteristics are Questionable and remain as far as I know unaswered in a Real life Situation.so are the A-10"s,But only If BOTH the engines gets shot out (The Golden BB"s) or wing or other Essential part to keep it flying and in the air.There are many Pic,videos out there of A- 10"s who made it back on one engine and with pieces missing.which what may happen in the next High intensity warfare enviorment (Thats anybodies guess where that may be next) I personally would like to see them do a New Dedicated CAS Platform,Without a Pilot (and Maybe thats Coming,with all the good characteristics of the A-10 and that includes armor for the Vulnerable areas,Gun,Long Loiter,Good payload Capacity and ability to take hits,have pieces knocked off and still make it back) or put 2 engines in the F-35 for the same reason as the A-10 (Which my understanding is its not gonna happen for now.) And while A-10's were getting shot up,They were designed to Take it and they did and made it back,Same with the Su-25 Variants and I dont see the Russians doing away with the Su-25"s in spite of the fact that they got Su-34-35"s ?? in syria as well (Btw the Su-25 looks very similer to me to the Fairchild ?? A-9,loser to the A-10 in the AX Competetion) in Syria or any where else.In Fairness Nobody complained when the A-10"s showed up overhead in Iraq or Afghanistan either. And while it is getting more expensive to maintain,update and find parts for,It still maybe cheaper than some Alternatives, its loiter capabilities are Satifactory it can carry a Boatload of Ordinance (dependent on many Factors), And when you need Low and Slow in a High CAS (Unproven),Never say Never, I used to hear the same arguments about why we didnt need a gun in the F106,-F-4 Phabulous Pantom II,all that BVR stuff was gonna make the gun obsolete ,Well looking back we know how that went. or Low CAS Intensity enviorment The A-10 has shown it can get the Job done,and the pilot has the reasonable Confidence also that he stand a fairly good chance of making it back. Can you imagine the Outcry if we lost just one New F-35 in a Low intensity or High intensity enviorment,what would the Critics say ??. (that time may come sooner than later) I would say that A-10 never did find it self fighting in the high intensity CAS Enviorment which it was designed for (Thankfully),I look at the Videos of how the Harriers did in the low intensity CAS and they took at least one loss in the Iraqi war, And I think is a far better to compare the Harrier to the F-35 than the A-10,And is the Harrier doing CAS in Afhanistan No,(not to the extent that the A-10 is,if at all,and why not ?)Probably for many reasons including Questions are being raised about the ability of the F-35.some of which I posted about in this Post. Just my Thoughts. FWIW.
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Dysta »

Beijing Air Convention displayed the most recent model of FC-31 (formerly called J-31 by rumors), notice the difference of its tail flaps:

Image

It also displayed RD-93 (no picture), two of these for FC-31's power plants.
User avatar
NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by NakedWeasel »

You know, that looks suspiciously familiar...[8|]
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Dysta »

ORIGINAL: NakedWeasel

You know, that looks OVERLY familiar...[8|]
Fixed for you. [:'(]

Image

Image

Now let's see her 'father':

Image

The difference of tail flaps speculate its strike-fighter configuration, which is both F-35 and J-20 are using. I am not sure if SAC really discard F-22A's flap design for the sake of cost and extra balance with heavier loadout. But as you expected, it IS a shameless copy of F-35A with skimmer body, and two mid-size engines.
thewood1
Posts: 10278
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by thewood1 »

Holy cow...that looks VERY similar.
Hongjian
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:11 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Hongjian »

Well, most 5th gen fighters of similiar size are roughly similiar. Congruent development and similiar ideas to deal with same problems. Teh Japanese and the Korean concepts all look quite similiar to the F-35 or the FC-31 in one form or another.

thewood1
Posts: 10278
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by thewood1 »

I understand congruent development. But that is way beyond congruent development. You can have congruent development and not have them look that similar.

Back in engineering school, a professor used to use the Russian space shuttle design as an example of congruent development. He would bully any contrarian view in class...then this came out:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18686090/ns/t ... ggDEXpVhBc
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Dysta »

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I understand congruent development. But that is way beyond congruent development. You can have congruent development and not have them look that similar.
In short: If it LOOKS like a copy, it IS a copy.

The definition of "LOOK" is surely under different bias and understanding, but unfortunately, the actual understandings to look the difference between FC-31 and F-35 are as narrow as only pictures could suggests.

In that case, I don't blame anyone, designer included, to make such of similarity (or whatever people called like "evil copy" or "minion version") of aircraft. If innovation demands everything to be different, then more countries than just China should do NOTHING under this logic.
thewood1
Posts: 10278
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by thewood1 »

I don't have an issue with any part of the F-35 being copied. I just find people hiding the possibility of it being a copy behind the term congruent engineering.

A lot of people in the US don't like the F-35 design and its ability to fulfill its missions(s). I am curious if this Chinese plane has the same issues. If you are going to copy a design, shouldn't you copy one that is a proven success?
User avatar
NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:40 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by NakedWeasel »

I was thinking that too. Or even this surreal concept; what if it was meant to be stolen for our own nefarious purposes? [:D]
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
User avatar
Dysta
Posts: 1909
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:32 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Dysta »

Whatever it is, we cannot conclude anything as long as the FC-31 isn't finalized yet.

Time will tell, if China really 'don't think F-35 is a failure'.
Hongjian
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 1:11 pm

RE: Naval and Defense News

Post by Hongjian »

Well, for once, two medium-thrust engines vs. one high-thrust engine, as well as a flatter and more streamlined fuselage vs. a 'fatter' fuselage are differences that arent really minor from an engineering standpoint.
As for the vertical stabilizers, the F-35 might be an obvious example that could support copying, but the J-20 features an F-35-styled all-moving tail as well. I'd rather think that SAC has been inspired by CAC, before copying the F-35.
Indeed, the mockup of the FC-31 production type looks like the F-35. But you can only do that much with a similiar sized plane, featuring roughly similiar avionics (the EOTS, for example, that's also installed on the J-20) and probably similiar roles.

As for the F-35 being a failure; I dont think that there is something inherently wrong with the F-35, aside of the fact that LM wanted this plane to become the jack of all trades and replace all other currently serving US fighters (aside of the F-22) and even ground attack planes. All other problems, like software fusion, engine issues, cracking wings etc. are all normal for a newly developed plane and will be solved in time.

As long as SAC doesnt have such ambitious goals and merely wants the FC-31 to be a relatively cheap medium-sized multirole stealth fighter, while relying on relatively mature subsystems and engines, they wont experience the F-35's 'mission creep' issue.
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”