Jump to content

Wishlist for potential planes after JF-17


Wishlist for potential planes after JF-17  

275 members have voted

  1. 1. Wishlist for potential planes after JF-17

    • J-5A
      25
    • J-6III
      7
    • J-7G
      63
    • J-8E
      29
    • J-8F
      136
    • Q-5III
      47
    • Q-5D
      80
    • H-5
      47


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 251
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

THE F111 AARDVARK.. and examples why   The Aardvark... THE ARDVARK. Lemme show you why.   First, the little things people like about each of these modules, the Aardvark has them all in one package.

Guys, I was researching online and stamped on something interesting about J-8F, the plane we would all love to have. So check this out.

 

This poster was taken from one of those air show years back, when China was trying to sell it to Pakistan. But after Pakistan found out that US had a working example of J-8II via the peace pearl project, and know J-8II's fighting character, they decided not to purchase it.

Never the less, the poster showed it has a datalink.

ulppCMz.png

 

This photo shows J-8F can carry a self protection jammer pod. Judging by the shape and colour, it could be the KG300G pod.

5AapAlS.jpg

s6w8ioF.jpg

 

If J-8F can be made and come out ahead of all other 3rd gen fighters like MiG-23, F-4, and Mirage F1, you can bet I won't buy those. J-8F is the only one we need for our 3rd gen fighter need. :thumbup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah nice more posters and manufacturer bias little pamphlets. This is exactly why even JF-17 is in a rough spot. If DEKA does make it, I hope it is a realistic jet and not one presented in sales posters.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah nice more posters and manufacturer bias little pamphlets. This is exactly why even JF-17 is in a rough spot. If DEKA does make it, I hope it is a realistic jet and not one presented in sales posters.

 

:megalol::megalol:hehe, why don't you show me something that is not "manufacturer biased" sales poster?? Beside your claim that J-8F is just modified MiG-21 comment I mean? How do you know the sales post isn't an accurate representation of the plane itself? As far as I remember, the DCS JF-17 is way better than I imaged since I only had the "manufacturer biased pamphlets" on me, which didn't told much.

So why don't you show me something more trust worthy than the official military sale pamphlet? You think the international weapon sale is like how you sell lemonade on your front yard where you can promise people 10% juice while rip off people by only adding 5%? lol

This clearly shows your sinophobic mindset. You just keeps step on the hole you dig yourself. lol :lol::lol:


Edited by J-20
Link to post
Share on other sites
:megalol::megalol:hehe, why don't you show me something that is not "manufacturer biased" sales poster?? Beside your claim that J-8F is just modified MiG-21 comment I mean? How do you know the sales post isn't an accurate representation of the plane itself? As far as I remember, the DCS JF-17 is way better than I imaged since I only had the "manufacturer biased pamphlets" on me, which didn't told much.

So why don't you show me something more trust worthy than the official military sale pamphlet? You think the international weapon sale is like how you sell lemonade on your front yard where you can promise people 10% juice while rip off people by only adding 5%? lol

This clearly shows your sinophobic mindset. You just keeps step on the hole you dig yourself. lol :lol::lol:

 

I have never seen someone being so smug about being so wrong. Living in your own mind I guess. :)

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have never seen someone being so smug about being so wrong. Living in your own mind I guess. :)

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

lol with nothing to add, and no way to answer my question, you result in copying my phase used against you earlier? Can't even think of an original comeback? How pity


Edited by J-20
Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

lol with nothing to add, and no way to answer my question, you result in copying my phase used against you earlier? Can't even think of an original comeback? How pity

 

Sure, I will come up with an original comeback when I see an original Chinese aircraft design. Feels bad to see other people copy your work and present it on your face doesn't it? I can tell how upset you are with the amount of laughing emotes you add and come back to edit your posts.

 

I like Chinese aircrafts. Some Chinese aircrafts. What I do not like is how you try to censor all debates about the legitimacy of their functions. I am open for discussion if you have anything specific to present. So far it is just generic petty insults and biased performance hype.

 

Nobody is stopping you from sharing the news and hype but when doing it in open public platform, prepare to discuss it because people will bring up the hard facts.

 

Talk to me about the new Chinese jets and I will be glad to share which ones I like. Present me with a list of old copied jets, and I will share my opinion on them. I frankly care now how much that will bother you.

 

We here are aircraft enthusiasts and enjoy learning about the aircrafts. I would love to see a jet from China to rival Mirage, F-16 and Hornet. One of my main reason why I said that J-8F does not offer that interesting loadout.

 

Not sure why I am trying to explain myself here again. You are just here to insult people who do not like even one Chinese jet for their personal taste.

 

I have followed the JF-17 development and I use it as my main fighter in DCS. I have even defended it and its weapons back in the day.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, I will come up with an original comeback when I see an original Chinese aircraft design. Feels bad to see other people copy your work and present it on your face doesn't it? I can tell how upset you are with the amount of laughing emotes you add and come back to edit your posts.

 

I like Chinese aircrafts. Some Chinese aircrafts. What I do not like is how you try to censor all debates about the legitimacy of their functions. I am open for discussion if you have anything specific to present. So far it is just generic petty insults and biased performance hype.

 

Nobody is stopping you from sharing the news and hype but when doing it in open public platform, prepare to discuss it because people will bring up the hard facts.

 

Talk to me about the new Chinese jets and I will be glad to share which ones I like. Present me with a list of old copied jets, and I will share my opinion on them. I frankly care now how much that will bother you.

 

We here are aircraft enthusiasts and enjoy learning about the aircrafts. I would love to see a jet from China to rival Mirage, F-16 and Hornet. One of my main reason why I said that J-8F does not offer that interesting loadout.

 

Not sure why I am trying to explain myself here again. You are just here to insult people who do not like even one Chinese jet for their personal taste.

 

I have followed the JF-17 development and I use it as my main fighter in DCS. I have even defended it and its weapons back in the day.

 

hard facts? Do you mean your presumption on how the Chinese plane should be?

At least I had my data from the manufacturer.

Now show me your hard facts other than your subjective opinion. Showing your that subject opinion is not hard data is NOT an insult. You don't bother me, it is you who could not accept the world being anything other than the ones in your own script.

 

Once again, don't avoid my question. Show me the hard data to prove to us that the manufacturer pamphlet is wrong. Until then you are just showing us how childish you are. I am actually intrigued, how old are you really?

Link to post
Share on other sites
hard facts? Do you mean your presumption on how the Chinese plane should be?

At least I had my data from the manufacturer.

Now show me your hard facts other than your subjective opinion. Showing your that subject opinion is not hard data is NOT an insult. You don't bother me, it is you who could not accept the world being anything other than the ones in your own script.

 

Once again, don't avoid my question. Show me the hard data to prove to us that the manufacturer pamphlet is wrong. Until then you are just showing us how childish you are. I am actually intrigued, how old are you really?

 

Give it up mate, you got nothing. Just blabbering at this point. Take some time off the internet. See how the real world works. Come back when you have something intellectual to say. Maybe talk to someone in real life.

 

Such a childish immature behaviour. Especially on the sub-forum of my favourite jet. Pitiful really.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder, if you can not treat each other with respect then dont post.

 

thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand Big. I will end my arguement here.

Current Hangar : A-10C II ¦ AJS-37 ¦ A/V-8B ¦ F-14A/B ¦ F/A-18C ¦ FC3 ¦ JF-17 ¦ Ka-50 ¦ Mi-8 ¦ M2000-C ¦ SA342 ¦ UH-1H

 

Other Modules : Combined Arms ¦ Persian Gulf

 

TRAINED - LEARNING - UNTOUCHED - ABANDONED

Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorban has said he will stop I suggest J-20 and PLAFF do the same. Last warning

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Five Most Capable Combat Jets of the Third Generation - Part Three: Shenyang J-8

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/the-five-most-capable-combat-jets-of-the-third-generation-part-three-shenyang-j-8

 

It's an interesting read for people who are interested. Military Watch also always has interesting articles.

I even found an article on J-9. It is unfortunate that it never made pass wind tunnel testing.

ggmncxn.png.c8c23a31c31e7b0004e599109d5b9cd8.png

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/chengdu-j-9-china-s-over-ambitious-plan-for-an-advanced-multirole-fighter-which-inspired-a-new-generation

 

For people who understand Chinese.

http://mil.cnr.cn/ztl/bzxl/hkb/mtbd/201208/t20120807_510508096.html

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Five Most Capable Combat Jets of the Third Generation - Part Three: Shenyang J-8

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...e-shenyang-j-8

 

It's an interesting read for people who are interested. Military Watch also always has interesting articles.

I even found an article on J-9. It is unfortunate that it never made pass wind tunnel testing.

[ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tggmncxn.png Views:\t48 Size:\t161.5 KB ID:\t7114910","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"7114910","data-size":"full","title":"ggmncxn.png"}[/ATTACH]

https://militarywatchmagazine.com/ar...new-generation

 

For people who understand Chinese.

http://mil.cnr.cn/ztl/bzxl/hkb/mtbd/...510508096.html

 

This is interesting. I once watch a documentary on TV about J-20. During one of the airshow, many foreign spectators believe J-20 is an high altitude interceptor due to its elongated body. When J-20 showed its maneuverability later, people had hard time believe how could a fighter with elongated body can achieve such maneuverability. The military spokesman mentions the reason why J-20 could achieve its high maneuverability.

During the designing stage of J-10, the designer team argued about the configuration of J-10. After some research, it was understood that the reason for the high maneuverability of a 4th gen fighter is because they usually have 1 of the 2 configurations. They either have canard or wing root extension. Canard configuration was chosen for J-10.

During the designing of J-20, they wanted to have an elongated body for high supersonic performance (which explained how did J-20 become so long), but at the same time they want high maneuverability too. One of the designer said, why not to have both canard and root extension. That how J-20 ended up have both canard and root extension. Also explained how it achieve its maneuverability.

 

But when looking at the wind tunnel model of the J-9, you can see it already had both canard and wing root extension. No wonder J-9 was cancelled. I think it was just way too ambitious for Chengdu at the time.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is interesting. I once watch a documentary on TV about J-20. During one of the airshow, many foreign spectators believe J-20 is an high altitude interceptor due to its elongated body. When J-20 showed its maneuverability later, people had hard time believe how could a fighter with elongated body can achieve such maneuverability. The military spokesman mentions the reason why J-20 could achieve its high maneuverability.

During the designing stage of J-10, the designer team argued about the configuration of J-10. After some research, it was understood that the reason for the high maneuverability of a 4th gen fighter is because they usually have 1 of the 2 configurations. They either have canard or wing root extension. Canard configuration was chosen for J-10.

During the designing of J-20, they wanted to have an area ruled elongated body for high supersonic performance (which explained how did J-20 become so long), but at the same time they want high maneuverability too. One of the design said, why not to have both canard and root extension. That how J-20 ended up have both canard and root extension. Also explained how it achieve its maneuverability.

 

But when looking at the wind tunnel model of the J-9, you can see it already had both canard and wing root extension. No wonder J-9 was cancelled. I think it is just way too ambitious for Chengdu at the time.

 

Even as a lay person on the subject of aerodynamics I don't understand how a longer fuselage could be seen as a bad thing as long as the plane can in with a combat load and maybe mid mission fuel state achieve a decently aft enough

cg

 

I may be misunderstanding this but its desirable especially in a canard design as the cg shift moving aft increases instability and also increases forward canard volume, both advantages working to enhance the planes nose pointing capabilities and load/unload times

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even as a lay person on the subject of aerodynamics I don't understand how a longer fuselage could be seen as a bad thing as long as the plane can in with a combat load and maybe mid mission fuel state achieve a decently aft enough

cg

 

I may be misunderstanding this but its desirable especially in a canard design as the cg shift moving aft increases instability and also increases forward canard volume, both advantages working to enhance the planes nose pointing capabilities and load/unload times

 

Yes, I know. I am not studying aerodynamic for a living either. I was just stating what I saw from the documentary.

I heard that long fuselage area ruled design increase high altitude high speed performance or something like that. That's why J-8 has this very slender body.

I think it actually decrease performance at lower speed, maybe.

 

I did a search online and maybe have something to do with this. I am not sure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_rule

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Yeah, a late J-7 would be a solid choice (and one I'd be very much in favour of). I've written about this before so I'll just quote my most recent post on the subject:

 

 

[ ... ] If I were a DCS dev I'd go for a late Chengdu J-7 variant. It's different enough from the bis for people not to call it just another MiG-21 variant, it was widely exported so it fits a number of existing maps (Syria, Persian Gulf), it has extensive armament options (those two 30 mm cannons!), it'd pander to the lucrative Chinese market and capitalise on the surge in interest Chinese aircraft have enjoyed since the release of the JF-17... And, depending on the variant, it fits Cold War-style scenarios perfectly.

 

 

 

 

DCS module wishlist: F-104S ASA-M Starfighter / F-111F Aardvark / F-4E Phantom II / J 35F2 Draken / J-7M AirGuard / Kfir C.2 / MiG-17F / MiG-21 Bison / Mirage F1 / Su-17M4 / Su-24M / Yak-9U

Link to post
Share on other sites
J-10 is the only Chinese aircraft I am vaguely interested in.

 

Just pretend the JF-17 is a J-10, thats what I do.

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is interesting. I once watch a documentary on TV about J-20. During one of the airshow, many foreign spectators believe J-20 is an high altitude interceptor due to its elongated body. When J-20 showed its maneuverability later, people had hard time believe how could a fighter with elongated body can achieve such maneuverability. The military spokesman mentions the reason why J-20 could achieve its high maneuverability.

During the designing stage of J-10, the designer team argued about the configuration of J-10. After some research, it was understood that the reason for the high maneuverability of a 4th gen fighter is because they usually have 1 of the 2 configurations. They either have canard or wing root extension. Canard configuration was chosen for J-10.

During the designing of J-20, they wanted to have an elongated body for high supersonic performance (which explained how did J-20 become so long), but at the same time they want high maneuverability too. One of the designer said, why not to have both canard and root extension. That how J-20 ended up have both canard and root extension. Also explained how it achieve its maneuverability.

 

But when looking at the wind tunnel model of the J-9, you can see it already had both canard and wing root extension. No wonder J-9 was cancelled. I think it was just way too ambitious for Chengdu at the time.

 

Yeah too bad canards tend to be rather not "stealthy" in the case of J-20.

 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canards aren't the problem. Australia did run a test on a J-20 model to see how much radar signal it reflects. The front angle where canards are located was quite good.

The problem is on the side, and they can certainly improve the rear aspect by making a square-shaped exhaustion port and trapezoid vertical rudder fin. The rumor was that the trapezoid fin is more stealthy but decreases stability, while China is yet to design an FBW system to compensate for this decrease stability. This is why J-20 doesn't have a trapezoid rudder. If you take a look at the 2nd prototype of FC-31, they also gave up the trapezoid rudder.

Here is the report from Australia's test on J-20 I mentioned earlier. Have a look.

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

ASM for Su-27 in DCS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...