That's precisely why Canada is reconsidering its F35 purchase, IMO a Super Duper Hornet or Silent Eagle will be perfectly capable to fulfill RCAF's operational needs without the delay, cost overrun, and risk associated with the F35 program. Both Saudi Arabia and South Korea face much stronger security challenges in their region yet they have considered those 4.75 gen solutions, Canada really doesn't need Lighting II to defend against Santa Claus.
Shenyang FC-31 / J-31 Fighter Demonstrator
- Thread starter RedSky
- Start date
- Status
That's precisely why Canada is reconsidering its F35 purchase, IMO a Super Duper Hornet or Silent Eagle will be perfectly capable to fulfill RCAF's operational needs without the delay, cost overrun, and risk associated with the F35 program. Both Saudi Arabia and South Korea face much stronger security challenges in their region yet they have considered those 4.75 gen solutions, Canada really doesn't need Lighting II to defend against Santa Claus.
Good points.
We shall see how it works out.
I believe they are acting prematurely and that the costs will come down (they already are), and that they will end up getting a great aircraft, 5th gen., at or near the cost of a current fully upgraded F-16.
But it is theirs to decide and the Silent Eagle, particularly a new build, or the upgraded Super Hornet would be no slouch aircraft either.
Depends on your context of 'problems', as in how broadly do you define what is a 'problem'.Didn't the US Air Force F-111 has the same swing wing hydraulics concept like the Navy F-14? Just curious as to did it face the same problems when maintaining them?
For example, if you replace a major component on one wing sweep actuator or even the actuator itself, you must perform a complete operational checkouts, aka 'ops checks', of both wings, meaning you must hook up electrical and hydraulic power, have a cockpit wing sweep operator and one ground man, cordon (cone) off the aircraft, then perform a lengthy list of wing sweep actions before you can 'sign off' the entire maintenance event. This usually spans across two shifts, three if you have to cannibalize a 'hangar queen' for the appropriate part(s) if you have to wait for back ordered item(s) from a depot station across the country because the original manufacturer is no longer in business.
Is this a 'problem'? Not in the technical sense because, believe it or not, the wing sweep system in both the F-14 and F-111 are quite well designed and engineered. But they are more maintenance intensive than aircrafts that do not sweep their wings. So is this a 'problem'? In a way: Yes.
Other related issues or 'problems' are pylon stations alignment. As the wing sweep, there must be mechanisms for each pylon to keep its proper orientation to the airstream that is independent of wing sweep angle. In other words, each pylon must remain straight/true to airstream no matter where is the wing. The more pylons there are, the more mechanical doodads required, and the heavier the wing. In my 4-yrs on the -111, I have never seen a pylon station pivot gone bad because of poor design. It is actually very rare compared to other systems and always due to mechanical wear and tear. The pylon pivot system was actually very well designed and engineered.
Is this a 'problem'? In a way: Yes. Obviously we do not have this concern on the F-15 or F-16, do we?
In principle, the variable wing sweep system offers the best solutions of/for most flight conditions. But in practice the system is more maintenance intensive -- when something does break -- than 'fixed' wings. Not only that, I remember back in those pre-Internet days, or 'prehistoric' to the youngsters, there was a paper floating around about how a variable sweep wings system would enable a fighter to dominate most flight conditions and combat situations. The requirements were that the entire system must be under complete computer control and with about 10,000+ psi of hydraulics in order for the wing sweep movement to adequately respond to computer commands, especially with the high unpredictability of air combat. Today, we are just venturing into the 4,000 lbs psi hydraulics for the big airliners.
ludasmatyi
Junior Member
CD annouced something forty minutes ago on Weibo, somethig like "Rabbit got another new toy, which has a twin wheels nose-gear...". Now people are going nuts and asking for pictures.
Link?
What does that even mean? J-31 already has twin wheeled nose gear...
Why would J-20 used AL-31F engine when they have a more powerful engine like WS-10A which is currently equipping all domestic made Flanker and even prototypes?
Well, it is clearly a artist rendering or conception, or CG...not a "pic" as in picture of anything real.not sure if this picture was posted before. but here it is!
However, I believe ultimately the J-31 will make up a part of PLAN airwings on their carriers.
- Status