I've seen a lot of terrestrial laser defense systems comming out (silent hu ter and low altitude guardian come to mind), but nothing air-based. Anyone heard of any indication that the PLAAF might be getting in on the laser game? Granted, making a laser work on a plane is a lot harder than on a truck, but the USAF at least seems to be giving it the ol' college try...
Ask anything Thread (Air Force)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Yes. But we don't know how far it is coming along.
So something that I've heard for a long time on indian discussions is that they have an advantage over tibet because chinese fighters can only take off with half payload because of the altitude
Is there any truth to this or is it just a myth?
Couldn't the chinese fighters just compensate with higher takeoff speeds using longer takeoff distances?
Is there any truth to this or is it just a myth?
Couldn't the chinese fighters just compensate with higher takeoff speeds using longer takeoff distances?
Total bullshit to claim that higher altitude (lower density of air and lower atmospheric pressure) will halve the payload. I wonder how they calculated this if they are able to even understand the variables involved.
There is no doubt higher altitude is indeed bad for aircraft performance at take off (how bad though? nowhere near HALVING the payload lol!), is that there is a lower concentration of oxygen at higher altitudes. This would have some effect no doubt on engines but planes routinely take off from 2000m plus altitudes with barely a difference in payload, just longer runways and higher take off speeds and not even that much more. Also fighter aircraft engines routinely fly at or above 10,000m and have no issue with the oxygen concentration there.
The question is one of speed. And indeed you can compensate using longer runways and your total fuel will be that much (slightly) reduced compared to take off at sea level conditions. The lifting mechanism depends on pressure differential which depends a lot on the speed if atmospheric conditions are constant and you cannot control that if you're taking off in Tibet. The upside to taking off here is that you are already at a massive potential energy advantage vs an aircraft taking off 3000m lower in altitude. Sure that latter aircraft has an easier take off (ceteris paribus) and will use up slightly less fuel doing so (not substantial at all) but would need to burn a lot more fuel to climb to 4000m above sea level where you are taking off from.
In every case (ceteris paribus), an aircraft taking off at 4000m has overall advantage over one taking off at 1000m despite the inconveniences of the former setting.
If the missile ranges are tight enough for BVR engagement nearly immediately after take off, the aircraft now at 4500m + has IMMENSE energy advantage over one that just took off at 1000m and now at roughly 2000m burning hard to continue climbing to give their missiles some extra energy at launch.
TLDR Jai Hinds are soundbyte slaves and pretty moronic.
edit: I can't remember my Bernoulli and dynamics for specific explanations but the suggestion is simply a repetition of extreme exaggerations. The proofs are already obvious just by looking at commercial aviation practises for high altitude take offs, usually just longer runway and takeoff speed. No real need to lighten load in most cases. Do the Indians care to imagine what the tremendous potential energy difference mean for their fighters?
Last edited:
All the PLAAF airbases within 2000km of the main Indian Chinese border are at well above 4000m.
Indian air bases are all well below 1500m.
On a 100kg missile with initial launch velocity of lets say mach 1.5, the energy difference would more than double the range delta between the two missiles. It's rudimentary physics to do the maths on with some basic and fair assumptions. No matter what the launch conditions, the aircraft at 3000m + altitude advantage has absolute dominance.
To visualise the altitude difference.
|
|
|
|
| vs | and the climb is over a horizontal distance of roughly 50km ie Indian fighters will have to CLIMB and then some.
Based on my understanding, it's because China has no need for such a thing.
Gunships are vulnerable to even basic air defense so it's limited to use against poorly armed insurgents. (or civilians too if you're the US)
Coupled with proliferation of various sizes and types of UAVs and loitering munitions today that are:
1. Consume less money, resources and manpower to produce;
2. Can be produced in larger numbers and within smaller periods of time;
3. Smaller sizes hence smaller hitzone;
4. Can be launched from smaller airfields or airstrips that AC-130 gunships cannot operate from;
5. Can be expendable; and thus
6. Eliminating the need for aircrew hence eliminating the need to risk their lives on the battlefield.
Therefore, the need for gunships like the AC-130 has been significantly diminished today than it was a decade or two ago.
Last edited:
Hi if possible to answer how many F35 will be around China & SCS area just trying
to figure out what should be the minimum number of J20s should be on hand
if any one can answer & if possible country wise please
thank you
to figure out what should be the minimum number of J20s should be on hand
if any one can answer & if possible country wise please
thank you
~300 delivered and ordered excluding USAF and USN according to the news articles cited in Wikipedia.