China's FL-3000N missile maneuvers at 20G | Deagel

[Muhammad Omar]

Type 052D to thora ziada ho gaya. Main type 054a par hi khush ho jaon ga.

2 3 type 52 Chalein gai

i'll dance when these ship come to Pak Navy

 

[Shotgunner51]

these can be integrated into F-22 frigates... that'll sure boost the Ships defence

Yes bro, before arrival of new FFG/DDG, retrofitting F22P with new weaponry will be a nice approach, well balanced between capability & budget.

 

[Basel]

Lateral maneuverability comparison.

F-35: 5G
Most air-superiority fighters: 9G
China's Anjian (or Dark Sword) UCAV: 12 to 15G
China's FL-3000N anti-missile missile: 20G
----------

China's FL-3000N anti-missile missile has two frontal and four aft fins to enable maneuverability at 20G.
----------

FL-3000N

----------

FL-3000N unit on the left. Type 1030 CIWS to the right.
----------

FL-3000N uses a "dual Passive Radio Frequency and Imaging Infra-Red seeker for guidance."

Defense Updates: FL-3000N / HHQ-10 Missile CIWS Air Defense System

Have you posted about basic system or it has been upgraded??? because PN have rejected it in favor of HQ-7/FM-90 they said it is no way near to RIM-116.

 

[Oldman1]

Lateral maneuverability comparison.

F-35: 5G

F-35s can do more than 5G.

 

[gambit]

F-35s can do more than 5G.

Marty is going to post some old news...

 

[Martian2]

F-35s can do more than 5G.

No, it can't.

See citation from FlightGlobal below.

Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact

 

[Oldman1]

No, it can't.

See citation from FlightGlobal below.

Reduced F-35 performance specifications may have significant operational impact

Can't link through your link. Here's mine.

Why the F-35?: First non-test pilot trained on F-35 compares it to the F-16

Kloos has now finished all six qualification flights and is the first of a cadre of flight instructors who will help other pilots transition into F-35.

Kloos had some interesting things to say about the characteristics of the F-35 in comparison to the F-16:

The veteran F-16 operational tester and Weapons School grad shared some of his impressions the F-35. The jet is powerful, stable and easy to fly.

"One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it's not an F-22," Kloos says. "An F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we'll never be that."

But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. "When I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16," Kloos says.

A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. "You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth," he says. "It's of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently."

The F-35's acceleration is "very comparable" to a Block 50 F-16. "Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35," Kloos says. "But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it."

And, of course, it is with combat loading where the comparison should be made, since that’s the configuration that will go into “badguyland”, as Lt.Col Kloos calls it. It sort of puts a dagger in the heart of the argument critics like to use about the F-16s maneuverability and performance advantage. It’s coming from someone who knows the F-16 pretty intimately with over 2000 hours in the aircraft.

Before the critics try to twist that argument, Kloos adds a little ground truth to the debate:

The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement--especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. "It's really good at performing in that kind of configuration," Kloos says. "But that's not a configuration that I've ever--I've been in a lot of different deployments--and those are the configurations I've never been in with weapons onboard."

So that’s certainly not the configuration by which the two aircraft should be compared. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Instead, it is a much better comparison with the usual configurations Kloos and other F-16 pilots used in combat. And in that configuration, per Kloos, the F-35 outperforms the F-16.

 

[Martian2]

Can't link through your link. Here's mine.

Why the F-35?: First non-test pilot trained on F-35 compares it to the F-16

Kloos has now finished all six qualification flights and is the first of a cadre of flight instructors who will help other pilots transition into F-35.

Kloos had some interesting things to say about the characteristics of the F-35 in comparison to the F-16:

The veteran F-16 operational tester and Weapons School grad shared some of his impressions the F-35. The jet is powerful, stable and easy to fly.

"One of the things this aircraft usually takes hit on is the handling because it's not an F-22," Kloos says. "An F-22 is unique in its ability to maneuver and we'll never be that."

But compared to other aircraft, a combat-configured F-35 probably edges out other existing designs carrying a similar load-out. "When I'm downrange in Badguyland that's the configuration I need to have confidence in maneuvering, and that's where I think the F-35 starts to edge out an aircraft like the F-16," Kloos says.

A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet's performance. "You put all that on, I'll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that's not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth," he says. "It's of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently."

The F-35's acceleration is "very comparable" to a Block 50 F-16. "Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35," Kloos says. "But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it."

And, of course, it is with combat loading where the comparison should be made, since that’s the configuration that will go into “badguyland”, as Lt.Col Kloos calls it. It sort of puts a dagger in the heart of the argument critics like to use about the F-16s maneuverability and performance advantage. It’s coming from someone who knows the F-16 pretty intimately with over 2000 hours in the aircraft.

Before the critics try to twist that argument, Kloos adds a little ground truth to the debate:

The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement--especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. "It's really good at performing in that kind of configuration," Kloos says. "But that's not a configuration that I've ever--I've been in a lot of different deployments--and those are the configurations I've never been in with weapons onboard."

So that’s certainly not the configuration by which the two aircraft should be compared. It is an apples to oranges comparison. Instead, it is a much better comparison with the usual configurations Kloos and other F-16 pilots used in combat. And in that configuration, per Kloos, the F-35 outperforms the F-16.

Why are you quoting a citation from 2012? Your information is three years out of date.

By now (in the year 2015), everyone knows the F-35 can't beat a burdened F-16C carrying two external fuel tanks. The result makes sense. An F-35 maneuvers at 5G. An F-16C with two external fuel tanks probably maneuvers around 7G (which is 9G - 2G penalty for the fuel tanks).

Infidel Bloggers Alliance: "The F-35 has no place fighting other aircraft within visual range"

 

[Oldman1]

Why are you quoting a citation from 2012? Your information is three years out of date.

By now (in the year 2015), everyone knows the F-35 can't beat a burdened F-16C carrying two external fuel tanks. The result makes sense. An F-35 maneuvers at 5G. An F-16C with two external fuel tanks probably maneuvers around 7G (which is 9G - 2G penalty for the fuel tanks).

Infidel Bloggers Alliance: "The F-35 has no place fighting other aircraft within visual range"

Fine you want something this year. And remember that the previous article may be old 3 years ago, the F-35 is capable with weapons loaded compared to F-16. Doubt the F-16 will do anything different since 3 years ago.

F-35 Tested Against F-16 In Basic Fighter Maneuvers | Defense content from Aviation Week
The operational maneuvers were flown by Nelson in AF-2, the primary Flight Sciences loads and flutter evaluation aircraft, and one of nine F-35s used by the Edwards AFB-based 412th Test Wing for developmental testing (DT). The F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards has six F-35As, two F-35Bs and a single F-35C dedicated to DT work, as well as a further set of aircraft allotted to the Joint Operational Test Team. Work is underway as part of efforts to clear the final system development and demonstration (SDD) maneuvering envelopes on the way to initial operational capability (IOC). The U.S. Marine Corps F-35B IOC is targeted for later this year, the Air Force’s F-35A in 2016, and the U.S. Navy’s F-35C in 2019.

“When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an early look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

“Pilots really like maneuverability, and the fact that the aircraft recovers so well from a departure allows us to say [to the designers of the flight control system laws], ‘you don’t have to clamp down so tight,’” says Nelson. Departure resistance was proven during high angle-of-attack (AOA) testing, which began in late 2012 with the aircraft pushing the nose to its production AOA limit of 50 deg. Subsequent AOA testing has pushed the aircraft beyond both the positive and negative maximum command limits, including intentionally putting the aircraft out of control in several configurations ranging from “clean” wings to tests with open weapons-bay doors. Testing eventually pushed the F-35 to a maximum of 110 deg. AOA."


"With the full flight envelope now opened to an altitude of 50,000 ft., speeds of Mach 1.6/700 KCAS and loads of 9g, test pilots also say improvements to the flight control system have rendered the transonic roll-off (TRO) issue tactically irrelevant. Highlighted as a “program concern” in the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) 2014 report, initial flight tests showed that all three F-35 variants experienced some form of wing drop in high-speed turns associated with asymmetrical movements of shock waves. However, TRO “has evolved into a non-factor,” says Nelson, who likens the effect to a momentary “tug” on one shoulder harness. “You have to pull high-g to even find it.” The roll-off phenomena exhibits itself as “less than 10 deg./sec. for a fraction of a second. We have been looking for a task it affects and we can’t find one.”

So in other words, they finally released the beast by taking off its chains.

 

[Hyperion]

Main point.... F35 is overweight and underpowered...... they wanted everything in one plane? They got stuck with this fat beast that can neither fight nor run in a real world 'badland' scenario........ it's best suited to bomb the shit out of Arab and African countries, however, that wasn't the purpose it was designed for, or was it?

F22 on the other hand is one success story that no one else can replicate, at least in the foreseeable future..........

 

[TaimiKhan]

Guys plz keep the discussion on the topic, no need to bring in planes and their Gs since we all know that missiles can pull more Gs compared to aircraft, so no need to start the comparing contest.

 

[S10]

FL-3000 is an entirely different system than HQ-10 currently in service. It is meant for export and did not win Chinese navy's contract. The current last line of defence for warships is made up with 1130 as well as HQ-10, which is stated to have better performance.