| Tango01 | 05 Jun 2015 11:09 p.m. PST |
"Desperate to project power in the South China Sea, Beijing is working on a hovering "jump jet" that looks a lot like the Pentagon's F-35B. But this bit of espionage will cost them.
China's been introducing new high-tech weapons at a breakneck pace as it races to catch up to the U.S. military. And the tanks, ships, planes, and other hardware that Beijing can't invent on its own, it tends to copy from American, Russian, European, or Israeli designs. Sometimes by legally licensing them. Sometimes by acquiring a few examples on the black market and reverse-engineering them. Frequently by hacking foreign companies' or governments' servers and stealing blueprints. Which is probably why China's J-10 warplane looks a lot like Israel's Lavi prototype and why the J-11 is identical to Russia's Su-27. And why the communist state's Z-10 attack helicopter is packed with French-designed components. Now China is working on a new warplane clone—a hovering "jump jet" that can take off from and land on small warships or tiny island airstrips…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
| Rabbit 3 | 06 Jun 2015 4:36 a.m. PST |
For a plane that was in service from the early `60`s are Harrier losses all that high?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harrier_Jump_Jet_family_losses
Do I suspect Lon Nordeen has a personal axe to grind?
I note that his `45 USMC pilots killed` include combat losses, accidents due to weapons failure, blatent pilot error and other things not atributable to failures in the arcraft design. |
| Prof Pate | 06 Jun 2015 5:48 a.m. PST |
Yes Rabbit 3 I agree Many aircraft type can be described as 'widowmakers'going back at least the the WW1 Camel with its incredible trun or the Albatross having a tendency to lose wings in dives. You gotta respect the plane and learn to fly it. No good blaming design if you try to operate outside the original spec. Harrier held its own in air-to-air. Is suspect many pilots would rather dogfight in that than the A10! all best John |
| jowady | 06 Jun 2015 6:25 a.m. PST |
As I recall the Harrier as used by the USMC had a very high accident rate. This was because while the British required a pilot to be very experienced to fly Haariers, the Marines insisted on using pilots right out of flight school. The Harrier is trickier to fly than other aircraft. When the Marines started using pilots with more hours the accident rate dropped . |
| Only Warlock | 06 Jun 2015 8:41 a.m. PST |
The chinese can't even make good copies of Russian jet engines. Good luck with that. On a corollary note I have decided that I am of the opinion that the F-35 will end up being a decent bird. Thrust to weight is pretty high, rcs is very low and it is pretty small for what it does. |
| Tango01 | 06 Jun 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
Like your positive waves my friend!. (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| Lion in the Stars | 06 Jun 2015 1:28 p.m. PST |
The Harrier is tricky to fly, and the Marines liked assigning pilots to a single type of aircraft, which meant most of the pilots were straight out of flight school when they started training on the Harrier. Harrier held its own in air-to-air. Is suspect many pilots would rather dogfight in that than the A10! The A10 is frighteningly maneuverable. It can actually do the "flip around and shoot the guy behind me" maneuver that you see in Babylon 5 or Battlestar Galactica. The local Air Guard guys seem to be maintaining a 3:1 win rate against the F15s and F16s from Mountain Home AFB. |
| mandt2 | 06 Jun 2015 10:31 p.m. PST |
LOL! Great title Armand. Maybe that's the plan. Get china to invest billions on a brick with wings, while we roll out the faster, stealthier, and cheaper F-36. |
| Prof Pate | 07 Jun 2015 2:49 a.m. PST |
Hi Lion I appreciate the slow speed manoeuvre ability of the A10 but we are looking at an aircraft that, when in the hands of experienced pilots can can go vertical or literally sideways – which the normal types you mention can't.
However this could degenerate into an exchange around hypothetical opinion.
So lets say the harrier is basically a good plane (in my view) but requires experience to get the best from it. And air conditioning.
Cheers John |
| Jemima Fawr | 07 Jun 2015 11:41 a.m. PST |
It's not actually true that the RAF sent experienced pilots to Harrier squadrons. The RAF also sent pilots straight from TWU (Tactical Weapons Unit – the final stage of fast jet training) straight to Harrier Operational Conversion Unit. However, the Harrier squadrons always got absolutely the best pilots from TWU. In fact, many of the absolutely top tier of new pilots actually did a tour instructing before going to Harrier OCU. The Fleet Air Arm only had one sort of fast jet – Harrier. So all new pilots on Sea Harrier were new pilots… |
| Lion in the Stars | 07 Jun 2015 7:07 p.m. PST |
So lets say the harrier is basically a good plane (in my view) but requires experience to get the best from it. I agree that the Harrier is a pretty good airplane. EVERY plane requires experience to get the best from it. |
Tgerritsen  | 07 Jun 2015 8:04 p.m. PST |
Was that article written by a 12 year old? Is this what journalism has come to on the internet? Oh wait, it has. |
