Chinese J-14 Pic (Probably CG)
Rob Arndt
Rob Arndt
Rob Arndt wrote:
> http://brd3.chosun.com/brd/files/BEMIL091/upload/2006/03/13178834_2006031811014845699300[1].jpg
>
> Rob
Full Korean page (above link not allowed access):
http://brd3.chosun.com/brd/view.html?tb=BEMIL091&pn=2&num=1107
Rob
Rob Arndt
Third attempt as access denied in two previous links. Try this one and
follow links:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=2750
Ughhhh....
Rob
Joe Delphi
news:1151175996.2...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Interesting shot of it in the hangar. Look at the nose. What do you think?
Some type of phased-array radar antenna?
I assume that since the other "photos" are really artist's conception, that
this thing has not flown yet?
JD
Rob Arndt
The hanger shot looks CG as well. The phased-array radar and all shapes
look unrefined and undetailed... plus the shadow effects. Even wooden
mock-ups have details. The photo of the J-14 looks so clean and
artificial that Lucas could use it in a Star Wars episode!
The other two "flying shots" were cool just to get a better idea of the
general lay-out of the plane than the Sino Defense site artwork 3-way
IMO...
Rob
bbrought
These "photographs" appeared on another defence forum about 6 months
ago and the original artist (a known photoshop guru) admitted he did it
for a bit of fun. It is not even an "official" artists impression - it
is pure fiction. Somehow, his pictures turned up in a Chinese
publication and now have almost become accepted as real. It is amazing
how gullible people can be! I challenge you to find a reference to the
J-14 at any of the respected aviation publications. There are rumours
about a J-12 (Shenyang) and J-13 (Chengdu) - but both are still initial
studies (if true).
frank
that, an advanced Messerschmitt design? :)
Rob Arndt
frank wrote:
> Now the Chinese are copying those late WWII German designs! What was
> that, an advanced Messerschmitt design? :)
The Chinese are much better copying Russian designs... in this case,
the J-14 is the MiG 1.42/1.44...
Rob
p.s. Nice try Frank, not biting...
bbrought
Not giving up, Jon? So, does this mean you are going to take up my
earlier challenge and post a link or reference to a respected aviation
group (such as Janes) about the J-14? As I stated earlier, the pictures
you posted are pure fiction and the original artist admitted he was
just doing it for fun. No-one knows what J-14 will look like, because
it is currently only a unsubstantiated rumour. Anyway, I thought the
J-13 is supposed to be the MiG-1.42, or was that the J-12... Or are you
claiming the J-12, J-13 and J-14 are the MiG-1.42? Seems like the
Chinese have two redundant programmes then, doesn't it?
eatfastnoodle
I don't know anything about J-13, but J-12 was developed during the
cultural revolution to realize the leadership's concept of "air
guerrilla war", and although its maneuverability was pretty good, it
had almost no electric equipment, thus never become operational, let
alone being accepted by the air force, I remember that only a couple of
J-12 was manufactured, one of them was brought by a military museum and
being put in front of that museum as the symbol of the museum, if you
went to Beijing, you will be able to see it.
frank
But I'm not as astute as you.
Rob Arndt
Who said anything about the J-14 designation being accurate? I only
posted 3 CG shots of what is CLAIMED to be the J-14 and in my
subsequent posts commented that the hangar shot was bogus and that the
copy here is off the MiG 1.42/1.44 (MFI).
To answer your questions on designations, let's examine the history of
the claims.
1) J-12: 2003, windtunnel model shown and small-scale models- no
resemblence to MiG MFI
2) J-13: 2005, known as 4th generation J-XX, models and artist
conceptions resemble MiG-MFI
3) J-14: 2006, reported as final 5th generation stealth fighter final
configuration and yet still looks like J-13 (J-XX) model:
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/jxx2.asp
The designation/configuration problem either lies with the Chinese
themselves or Western interpretations of the same design. Some sites
claim J-13 is now a single-engine light fighter similar to Indian
developments...
Rob
bbrought
Rob Arndt wrote:
> Who said anything about the J-14 designation being accurate? I only
> posted 3 CG shots of what is CLAIMED to be the J-14 and in my
> subsequent posts commented that the hangar shot was bogus and that the
> copy here is off the MiG 1.42/1.44 (MFI).
You admitted they were CG - not once did you indicate any uncertainty
over whether the J-14 exists or whether the designation was accurate.
In fact, let me quote you from two posts back:
> The Chinese are much better copying Russian designs... in this case,
> the J-14 is the MiG 1.42/1.44...
The J-14 "IS" the MiG 1.42/1.44... You seem to be so certain that it
exists (and that it looks like the MiG 1.42/1.44) that you even accused
the Chinese of copying the Russians. I am not disputing J-12 or J-13 -
these have been reported fairly widely although the details of both are
sketchy.
Rob Arndt
No such certainty at all- just replying sarcastically to Frank who
tried to bait me with the "German copy" tactic. It didn't work and
quite frankly (no pun intended), historically the Chinese DO copy
Russian designs and both the J-13 (aka J-XX) and now dubious J-14 5th
generation variant a/c DO resemble the MiG MFI to a large degree. It
certainly is no copy of the F/A-22, F-35, Gripen, Rafale, Eurofighter,
etc...
My advice: get your head out of your ass and read the entire thread
before posting BS responses...
Rob
FatKat
give up irony entirely. This whole thread is beginning to echo that
other thread you started about the new tactical fighter bomber that
seemed to exist only on fictitious webpages. You were the only one who
seemed apparently fooled - but ofcourse you weren't fooled, you were
only being sarcastic.
bbrought
Rob Arndt wrote:
> My advice: get your head out of your ass and read the entire thread
> before posting BS responses...
>
Interesting...
1) It is a fairly short thread and I was the second person to respond
to your original set of posts. Which part of the discussion do you
think I missed and should I read again?
2) Which part of my response was the BS part?
3) Rob/Jon calling someone else's posts BS: Now there is irony for
you...