NICE Ukraine Bizon (Zubr) hovercraft come to China

[Alfa-Fighter]

But definitely J-11 changes is not just added an light bulb on the wing.

Besides the airframe, nothing inside the J-11B is the same from Russian Su-27SK. Even the airframe is lighter by 700kg and lifespan has increased to 10000 flying hours.

The very fact, it can only fired PL-12 missile and not R-77 BVRAAM tells you the avionic inside is totally different. The Glass clockpit set up is totally different from Su-27SK with 3 multi function display panels. Even the engine are replaced with indigenous WS-10A engine. WS-10A is not a copy of AL-31F, WS-10A deployed different stage of compression and fans compared to AL-31F

This is the real face of Taihang (WS-10) Turbofan Engine! - China Defense Mashup

I agree, With your Point.

Iam only talking about airframe Design, BTW SU-30MKI is also everything different, Indian designed Mission computer etc, but that didn't make calling Indian plane.

China have to use their own Radar , Mission computer etc , Regarding engine, China still rely on Russian engines.

BTW , its good you making progress.

 

[neehar]

By the time landing crafts come into play, the missiles and aircrafts would have already suppressed main part of the resistance. The land craft allows fast deployment of heavy equipment for expanding inland.

probably it would be used mostly for transport am i right??or can it be used for combat purpose also??is there any other country using these types i mean of this size

 

[Fsjal]

probably it would be used mostly for transport am i right??or can it be used for combat purpose also??is there any other country using these types i mean of this size

Greece has the most. Don't know why?

 

[cnleio]

Greece has the most. Don't know why?

Greece conflicts with Turkey, they controls most islands. Greece ever bought 4x Zubrs to transport stuffs between these islands and mainland.

Greece's islands very close to Turkey (or can say took islands from Turkey)

 

[Beast]

Regarding engine, China still rely on Russian engines.

BTW , its good you making progress.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...k-innovation-obstructing-d-3.html#post4175018

 

[lunnn]

So the white elephants have arrived.... A order too late and useless for PLAN.
I am sure, PLAN will not order more and not make any more of it.

These order for 4 zubr came in the late 90s and suppose to deliver in the early 2000s for the Taiwan strait crisis but the Ukraine shipyard screw up and delay the order until now.. Since the money had already paid. So PLAN still take in these orders.

Taiwan crisis threat is no more and PLAN and PLANAF are in a stronger position now, these zubr are surplus.

It can be used in other disputed Islands

 

[SQ8]

yes for a same mileage ,same load and capacity of an engine and same fluid conditions the efficiency of a hovercraft will be much higher compared to a conventional boat/ship as a hovercraft experiences much less drag compared to its counterpart also its independent of an upstream or a down stream unlike a conventional aircraft.so a hovercraft haves more thrust compared to a conventional ship which means more acceleration and greater rate of increase of speed..i do not have any links to substantiate my statement but being a mechanical engineer i think im qualified to answer ur question.

Ive also done engineering, so I doubt your statement about stability.. hence Ill call in more qualified people @Penguin @Capt.Popeye

 

[navtrek]

Till date no one has given proof that China stole and re-engineered or reverse engineered Flankers but the reality is Russians are getting lofty sum of money for giving Licenses to China to develop Flankers as per their needs. Again i ask people to bring clear proof not web links with accusations. What possibly can China do to Zubr perhaps add some sort of light weapons make it even bigger?

I think he is just asking a question and not making an accusation on China.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The basis for that statement?

And posted by @neehar.

Originally Posted by neehar
yes..its very fast compared to their counter parts but at the same time its tougher to keep them stable compared others..with out good experience operating these would be a suicide

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...br-hovercraft-come-china-2.html#ixzz2QtraLuWc

Hover craft or "Air Cushion Vehicles " as they are technically called have advantages as well as disadvantages. Manouevering in high seas or high wind (esp X-winds) are challenging if not downright difficult--> impossible.
Though they manuever better than Displacement Craft ie Ships in 'benign conditions'.

yes for a same mileage ,same load and capacity of an engine and same fluid conditions the efficiency of a hovercraft will be much higher compared to a conventional boat/ship as a hovercraft experiences much less drag compared to its counterpart also its independent of an upstream or a down stream unlike a conventional aircraft.so a hovercraft haves more thrust compared to a conventional ship which means more acceleration and greater rate of increase of speed..i do not have any links to substantiate my statement but being a mechanical engineer i think im qualified to answer ur question.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...br-hovercraft-come-china-2.html#ixzz2Qtsf92Ib

Some of the assertions here are not valid. Just on grounds of fuel efficiency or load efficiency; ACVs (Hovercraft) are far less efficient than Ships and other displacement craft. As an example, just looking at the Bizon (Zubr) craft shown in this thread; a displacement craft/ship of similar dimensions would carry a load of about 1500-2000 MT easily, the Bizon carries just 56 MT employing more powerful engines than the ship would very likely. While it is granted that the Hovercraft will have a higher top speed and acceleration than that Ship. But the ACV will be confined to more benign operating conditions than the ship.
But most importantly consider the vulnerability of the "Skirts" the basis of operation of the Hovercraft. Damage that, then the Hovercraft will not be able to do much. Which is why Hovercraft have such limited applications.

 

[帅的一匹]

Zubr is the best hovercraft in th world, we should build it as many as possible to reinforce our islands capture ability in SCS.

 

[neehar]

And posted by @neehar.



Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...br-hovercraft-come-china-2.html#ixzz2QtraLuWc

Hover craft or "Air Cushion Vehicles " as they are technically called have advantages as well as disadvantages. Manouevering in high seas or high wind (esp X-winds) are challenging if not downright difficult--> impossible.
Though they manuever better than Displacement Craft ie Ships in 'benign conditions'.




Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chines...br-hovercraft-come-china-2.html#ixzz2Qtsf92Ib

Some of the assertions here are not valid. Just on grounds of fuel efficiency or load efficiency; ACVs (Hovercraft) are far less efficient than Ships and other displacement craft. As an example, just looking at the Bizon (Zubr) craft shown in this thread; a displacement craft/ship of similar dimensions would carry a load of about 1500-2000 MT easily, the Bizon carries just 56 MT employing more powerful engines than the ship would very likely. While it is granted that the Hovercraft will have a higher top speed and acceleration than that Ship. But the ACV will be confined to more benign operating conditions than the ship.
But most importantly consider the vulnerability of the "Skirts" the basis of operation of the Hovercraft. Damage that, then the Hovercraft will not be able to do much. Which is why Hovercraft have such limited applications.

while agree with ur post i must say that my post has got nothing to do with any millitary vehicle it was a pure technical statement..with the same engine and same load a hovercraft is more efficient or must i say consumes lesser energy to produce more thrust compared to conventional vehicles.which means it will have a greater thrust for same conditions compared to a ship that what i mean to say yes it has a fair share of advantages and disadvantages but its just that i didnt mention them.my intention was purely to compare their performance in a technical perspective

 

[Capt.Popeye]

while agree with ur post i must say that my post has got nothing to do with any millitary vehicle it was a pure technical statement..with the same engine and same load a hovercraft is more efficient or must i say consumes lesser energy to produce more thrust compared to conventional vehicles.which means it will have a greater thrust for same conditions compared to a ship that what i mean to say yes it has a fair share of advantages and disadvantages but its just that i didnt mention them.my intention was purely to compare their performance in a technical perspective

That statement wrt thrust is itself the incorrect parameter to consider. Just as nobody can consider the thrust of an Aircraft with that of a Ship. Different fluid media; different designs of propellors and so on. If you want to; then compare ACVs with Aircraft or even Ekanoplanes, that will make some sense maybe. Comparing ACVs to Ships is like comparing "Apples to Oranges".

If it was so; then both the fuel efficiency and load efficiency and energy efficiency of Non-Displacement craft vis-a-vis Diplacement craft would have been more favorable. ACVs would have replaced Ships. It is not so.

 

[neehar]

That statement wrt thrust is itself the incorrect parameter to consider. Just as nobody can consider the thrust of an Aircraft with that of a Ship. Different fluid media; different designs of propellors and so on. If you want to; then compare ACVs with Aircraft or even Ekanoplanes, that will make some sense maybe. Comparing ACVs to Ships is like comparing "Apples to Oranges".

If it was so; then both the fuel efficiency and load efficiency and energy efficiency of Non-Displacement craft vis-a-vis Diplacement craft would have been more favorable. ACVs would have replaced Ships. It is not so.

as i said it has its fair share of disadvantages and again my point was only referred to engine parameters "assuming" everything else same .yes you have a point there .the performance of an air turbine of a hovercraft is different compared to a propeller of a ship and i have to admit that i didnt consider that fact.thank you.

 

[Beast]

It can be used in other disputed Islands

Most of the island dispute are too far way from mainland china except Taiwan. Zubr has a very short endurance of only few hundred kilometres. while LST and LDP can travel thousands and has better endurance strength. It can stay at trouble spot for 1 month and more.

 

[cnleio]

Zubr is ours !