Chinese Air Force Gets Chinese C-130

[BigDaddyWatch]

Both Y-8 and Y-9 are aerodynamically copies of the Antonov An-12. China copied
the An-12 into the Y-8 many years ago, IF you really got the know-how about
its aerodynamics and design priniciples (which you should have if you consider the
plane indigenous), what's the need to take the aircraft to the Ukrainian Antonov
Design Bureau (which originally designed the An-12)??

When China put the AEW radar on top of Y-8 and made the KJ-200, it was
aerodynamically unstable, the Shaanxi guys did not know its design
principles, as a result, a KJ-200 crashed killing many crew. This is clean evidence
to show that the when Chinese "copy" something, you don't really "learn" into
it, you just blindly build it under a Chinese name!

It was only after the Antonov OKB in Kiev looked into the plane that they told
you that additional control fins on the tail are needed for adequate control
of the plane. Thats true knowledge, which is only achieved when you design
something from scratch and really conducted any R&D related to it.

The same happens with the Chinese Flanker copies, you had been building
the Su-27SK under the name J-11 for years, but still when you needed a carrier-based
variant, the Shenyang had no clue how to modify them, because they don't
have the background Intellectual Property of the design.

It was only after Ukraine again dropped in to help with a ready-made Su-33/T-10K
prototype that Shenyangs got to know where what should go and how to do it.

As of the foreign involvement in Y-9, its very certain that it too has received help
from Ukrainians but since its aerodynamically not much different than the Y-8
that you build, the foreign involvement could be lower. Its too early to say at this
point since the Y-9 is only now getting inducted.

You only rehash the history of Y-8, KJ-200, J-11B and J-15 but offer zero proof of any Ukrainian or Russian involvement with the Y-9 project.

As for the J-10 being a clone of the IAI lavi of Israel is nothing more than a rumor since both China and Israel have denied the J-10 being a copy of the Lavi. The only thing is that the two planes have some superficial resemblance of each other. By that logic the Flanker is then a copy of the F-15. As for the J-11B and the J-15 it's true that those airframes is Soviet designed but all of the internal subsystems are all Chinese designed and made including the engines.

With the exception of the J-10A engines that is still using the Russian build AL-31 because WS-10A engine production can't keep up with demand for J-11's all else is build in China domestically. While India is still deeply dependent on its foreign suppliers.

In 2010 China only imported 493 million dollars of arms and exported more than 1,4 bilion dollars of arms. India in the same period imported more than 3,3 billion dollars of arms and India isn't even amongst the top 15 arms exporters in the world meaning exports of less than 95 million dollars. So China is a net arms exporter while India is the world's largest arms importer. This shows you the difference in the level of development in the arms industries and the dependency of foreign arms and technologies between China and India.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters

 

[shuttler]

Your Baidu Album does not seem to be working.

All I see is a deleted image on the top and a picture of a sad crying child in
the second image. I think the Russians/Ukrainians must have given up the
designs of the An-12 to the crying Chinese child to keep him quiet, is that
China's trick of acquiring foreign ac designs?

cut out the cr@p cheerleader! we are in a lot better shape than "shining" wannabe in most everything including the taking care of our children.

The LCA project was started much before India really got any knowledge
from the ToT of Su-30MKI which came only in early 21st century. You
maybe surprised to know that the LCA is more Indian than J-10 is Chinese.

Same for Kaveri engine, it was started much before we recieved the tech of
the AL-31FP engines.

If we were to produce Su-30MKI and Rafale under Indian names, many would
be lured into believeing that we really designed them? The J-10 design is originally
Israeli. J-11 lives and breathes the Russian Flanker mark all over it.

J10 was inducted into PLAAF in 2003

where is your lca now? you have the world for assistance in the development of the tejas and still fail miserably - over-running your time and budget

and the "indigenous" kaveri engine is a declared failure which can only find alternative use in either trainer planes or uav.

We have all our planes flying which are all made in China for many years and soon if our engines'
production lines are smoothened, all planes will be flying with our own engines

 

[ENRL]

When you copy something, you always have to give some credit to the original ;p

 

[ENRL]

cut out the cr@p cheerleader! we are in a lot better shape than "shining" wannabe in most everything including the taking care of our children.



J10 was inducted into PLAAF in 2003

where is your lca now? you have the world for assistance in the development of the tejas and still fail miserably - over-running your time and budget

and the "indigenous" kaveri engine is a declared failure which can only find alternative use in either trainer planes or uav.

We have all our planes flying which are all made in China for many years and soon if our engines'
production lines are smoothened, all planes will be flying with our own engines

If you go by the article in the Washington post the Chinese engine does 30hrs at a time. That's not even useful nor practical as a trainer. Also I see that you claim taking better care of children- how? By feeding melamine and have your government initially deny the whole thing?

 

[cirr]

At least 3 KJ-200s using the Y-9 platform in this single picture：

 

[Srinivas]

LCA uses foreign weapons, inside French airframe, fitted with American engine & Israeli avionics. Even the J-11B that you mentioned uses completely indigenous technologies within its fuselage; in fact only the airframe design is what links it to the Flanker. Israel and China both denied the fact that the J-10 was based off the Lavi.



If China didn't know the aircraft, it would have been flight tested in Ukraine instead of China. The fact that it is being flown in China says something different.

LCA airframe is completely different from that of Mirage, only thing that is common is delta wing configuration.

 

[Jango]

There is only one C-130, the tried and tested workhorse of numerous air-forces around the world.

 

[IND151]

looks good

BTW does it have 12 blades or 16 blades?

I wonder if the round fairing at the tail is normal.

perhaps it houses 20 or 23 MM cannon, like that in TU 95

 

[Tshering22]

So when is the production starting?

Any clue about order numbers?

There is only one C-130, the tried and tested workhorse of numerous air-forces around the world.

The only reason most NATO standard stuff is "tried and tested" is because they invade some or the other country every year.

If HAL and PAC start corporatizing like US firms and India and Pakistan's bureaucratic structure changes, we too will be building a lot of these "tested" equipment locally with wars being fought here and there.

 

[Zabaniyah]

The only reason most NATO standard stuff is "tried and tested" is because they invade some or the other country every year.

If HAL and PAC start corporatizing like US firms and India and Pakistan's bureaucratic structure changes, we too will be building a lot of these "tested" equipment locally with wars being fought here and there.

Invade countries every year? We can try and test new equipment by fighting more wars here and there?

These planes can also respond to natural disasters, not just wars. They are a very important element for logistics. Not for combat (unless AC-130). Be it a war or a natural disaster or even training exercises.

No one can question the sheer ruggedness of a C-130. It is operationally a proven platform for well over half a century. I don't think any country had the technical capability to design and build a plane like that at that time.

But now, it is possible, including for emerging economies like India and China.

Anyways, congrats to the Chinese. Indeed, their aviation industry has come very far and fast.

 

[Najam Khan]

I would be happy to see Y-9 having service life, endurance and ease of maintenance like Hercs as well (or at least close to that).

On a side note C-130, Mig-21 and F-16 have become BIG names in Mil aviation industry, if any one thinks his new aircraft can perform similar role then it should be considered a big compliment to his new machine not a "copy right violation".

 

[shuttler]

When you copy something, you always have to give some credit to the original ;p

correct! no copying so no credit given!

If you go by the article in the Washington post the Chinese engine does 30hrs at a time. That's not even useful nor practical as a trainer.

Oh your are praising us. the engine only runs for 12 hours at a time! thank you! dont leak this top secret out to anyone!

Also I see that you claim taking better care of children- how? By feeding melamine and have your government initially deny the whole thing?

For a comparison of the status of our kids and indian kids, you can easily browse on the net and on PDF's archives, search for tags like "indian child most undernourished "or "india drops out of pisa test" to realise the difference yourself. I wont post no more to feed your out-of-topic troll.

 

[Armstrong]

I would be happy to see Y-9 having service life, endurance and ease of maintenance like Hercs as well (or at least close to that).

On a side note C-130, Mig-21 and F-16 have become BIG names in Mil aviation industry, if any one thinks his new aircraft can perform similar role then it should be considered a big compliment to his new machine not a "copy right violation".

A noob question : Do you think some of its parts maybe interchangeable with those of the C-130s we use & hence we could look to the Chinese instead of procuring from overseas or that at this point in time we don't either have enough information to suggest that or some sort of a clause of the initial procurement agreement with the US would forbid us from doing that ?

 

[Jango]

The only reason most NATO standard stuff is "tried and tested" is because they invade some or the other country every year.

If HAL and PAC start corporatizing like US firms and India and Pakistan's bureaucratic structure changes, we too will be building a lot of these "tested" equipment locally with wars being fought here and there.

Before I could answer, Najam said it very well in post 41.

There's a long way to go for the Y-9 to remain in operation for 50 years, and still keep on going strong.

 

[Najam Khan]

A noob question : Do you think some of its parts maybe interchangeable with those of the C-130s we use & hence we could look to the Chinese instead of procuring from overseas or that at this point in time we don't either have enough information to suggest that or some sort of a clause of the initial procurement agreement with the US would forbid us from doing that ?

No, thats not possible. Aircraft unlike cars are very complex system and require 100% synchronization. I read somewhere that F-15 has over 30,000 nuts and bolts....you can't just plug one or more similar looking components out and put something else based on similar physical outlook. If you do so, they will be vibrating really hard during flight because of the extreme pressure...and most probably they would lead to a fatal crash.

Something happened with Flight394:

A quotation from this link:

The investigators concluded that the vibrations reached the same frequency and went into synchronization, a phenomenon known as resonance, causing a coupled harmonics force similar to the one that caused the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse in 1940; the force of each vibration wave would add to that of another vibration, increasing in amplitude until the structure failed

On a slightly unrelated note, PAC overhaul T-56 engine of C-130, they also do overhauling of its dome, propellers and other components. So, things are pretty much going smooth and they don't need to look out...even if they do, it will be the open market not just China.

here are the official links:
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
Pakistan Aeronautical Complex