Interesting report re Russian Sizzler Missile and the lack of a US response

I use the F-14 because those figures are the only ones which I know to be definitely true with the loads given, as opposed to other figures for other planes. Besides, with a max take off weight of 30000 kg, that is closer to the F-14 max takeoff weight than the F-15E. As I said, even if you add 1000 L to the 6500 L figure, or even more – let’s say it now has 8000L. How are you going to get twice the range with a heavier payload? This is not a slight increase, this is a MASSIVE increase in performance that isn’t likely to be achieved on a Spey type engine, even with some weight loss and fuel gain (which at most brings it’s empty weight down to 15000kg and fuel load up to 8000L).

I’m questioning F-14, because I’m not sure how having swept wings will affect the fuel efficiency, but then again, I don’t know enough about the aerodynamics to judge one way or another. Anyway, I’m out of this JH-7 issue as far as this thread is concerned.

I don’t really see that much change in the plane’s basic aerodynamics. That’s what really counts. Even though the plane is intended to replace the Su-24, I don’t see any change to make it a low flying interdictor.

How can u see when every thing is from inside. Remember Russians are the owners of science. only they can do the impossible
plane is intended to replace Su-24/Su-25/Tu-22. But it will take untill 2020 for all the 200 Planes. Do u even know the upgraded Su-24 performance? it also is rated for 8 tons and 3000 ET.

Everything else you posted is vague marketing information that has yet to be proven to the client.

Marketing information? they arent selling it to any one and everything is Classified

But it happened alright, it happened. In many wargames, the JH-7s play low flying interdictors and its up for the Sues, J-10s and J-8s to catch them. Hardly a lumbering platform I should say.

Chinese wargames are false information just like J-10 beating Su-27 and hiring foreign coaches for Gold Medals and sending twice the athletes.

You’re kidding me. Kh-31A only has 91kg of warhead, while a YJ-83 has at least double of that. The range of the Kh-31A is much more limited, up to 70km, and its never been proven or sighed that the Su-30 can carry more than four.

that KH-70 specification is alteast 20 years old. Newer ones are for 200KM range and even for newer ones for internal carriage like Kh-36/38 and Universal missile. Russia release things for export which are alteast 10 years old by there Science standards.
and how Su-30 in operations u have seen? everything is in peace time. which does not reflect its war time carrying ability which only manufacturer can give. u havent shown me JH-7A manufacturer site.

You don’t think the PLAAF and PLANAF has tested all this? The PLAAF has stopped buying Su-30MKKs last 2004. After that, they acquired JH-7As and updated H-6s. The PLANAF never went beyond one regiment of Su-30MK2 with the Kh-31A.

dont tell me PLAAF/PLANAF standards. they buy obsolete IL-76 and build cheaper clones of Antonovs. buying decisions are taken years in advance.

Wake me up when Brahmos is finally in operational service with an air platform.

It will be ready in next 2 years.

They were referring to Russian warranty that’s for sure. There has been many issues on the past on this, and even on vessels like the Kilo. 5 out of 20 Klub launches failed. 5 out of 15 RD-93s received failed. 1 out of 5 R-77 launches failed.

how do u know? and where is RD-93 failure? and Press logic there wont be RD-93 for Pakistan.

Sky high prices and without a strong brand name recognition is not good. Increase is month to month not even in years.

there is reason for that. no one can raise wages at such a speed

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070403/63015210.html
MOSCOW, April 3 (RIA Novosti) – Household real disposable income in Russia grew 12.7% year on year in January-February 2007 while real average monthly wages rose 17.5%, the country’s top statistics body said Tuesday

Which is not very helpful in producing consistent high quality products in mass for export.

and why they need that? thing about higher Technolgoy chain of multinational firm.

who cares about your excuses. For all your vaunted intellectual power, they don’t explain the bottomline, which is by far the GDP is made up of raw mineral and oil export. That’s the economic structure of a 3rd world country.

and GDP can capture Intellectual power.? how u explain 2 trillion dollar of Stock market overnight?

[quote]
And Russia have a service sector at all? How can you even have one when you don’t even have proper rule of law, which is the basic investor complaint. [/qoute]
yes they happens to have more expensive cities than China despite 10 times less population and twice the area and much lower energy costs.

Give me proof. The Kh-31 does not even have the range and programming flexbility of the Harpoon.

Proof is Malaysian airforce when they consider it superior to Harpoon. Show me single airforce that comes to opposite conclusion.?

5m? Only in the very final phase of flight. Supersonic AshMs generally are around 10 to 30m. You don’t have terrain following autopilot that will work at supersonic speeds, and both drag and turbulence are immense at sea level.

Just read the Brahmos ad from Indian side even they are saying 3 to 5m in final phase. when customer is acknowlging what else u wants. now where is ur thirdy party proof of YJ range and height?

Subsonic AshMs go down to 3m, and one or two like the Gabriel goes down to 2m.

and what makes u think supersonic doesnt go to 3 m in final phase when so much is classified about them. read the Hidden Potenial and just the pice than India paid for Club. and just look at Algerians Kilos.

It is totally different class and interms of flight profile, strenthening of wings, internal fuel, shape, FBW, Radar etc. can Flanker lift a 3 3000Litre tanks or two moskits. just its three weopon stations provide 8000kg of external load. it can take missiles side by side on centeral paylon. it is totally different level of flexibility. and its specifications have never been revealed. these are old floating around from 90s.

I don’t really see that much change in the plane’s basic aerodynamics. That’s what really counts. Even though the plane is intended to replace the Su-24, I don’t see any change to make it a low flying interdictor.

Everything else you posted is vague marketing information that has yet to be proven to the client.

so it is not even worth considering.

But it happened alright, it happened. In many wargames, the JH-7s play low flying interdictors and its up for the Sues, J-10s and J-8s to catch them. Hardly a lumbering platform I should say.

whats the point of carrying four when it cannot even sink a corvette. better carry 6 kh-31 alteast it has supersonic energy. 3 Brahmos should be enough for destroyer size ship considering it has 9 times energy of subsonic. it depends on mission. Su-30 can approach the target faster and turn around faster. simply superior platform.

You’re kidding me. Kh-31A only has 91kg of warhead, while a YJ-83 has at least double of that. The range of the Kh-31A is much more limited, up to 70km, and its never been proven or sighed that the Su-30 can carry more than four.

You don’t think the PLAAF and PLANAF has tested all this? The PLAAF has stopped buying Su-30MKKs last 2004. After that, they acquired JH-7As and updated H-6s. The PLANAF never went beyond one regiment of Su-30MK2 with the Kh-31A.

Wake me up when Brahmos is finally in operational service with an air platform.

Plane is cleary two seater but they are not referring to that particular plane.

They were referring to Russian warranty that’s for sure. There has been many issues on the past on this, and even on vessels like the Kilo. 5 out of 20 Klub launches failed. 5 out of 15 RD-93s received failed. 1 out of 5 R-77 launches failed.

thats what i am saying. tommroow they will say 10000km antiship missile.
YJ-8 is the same thing like PL-8 almost on every thing. simple and cheap.

The bang for the buck is good.

the prices of Russian exports are now sky high. without exchange of natural resources i doubt they want to deal on any currency. considering there wage and currency growth.

Sky high prices and without a strong brand name recognition is not good.

why it should be doubted. they have 300 years of continous history from Russian Academy of science.

Which is not very helpful in producing consistent high quality products in mass for export.

Kind a look at East Germany and its intellectual power under 4 decades of communism. the rest are not worth the example.
u dont have proper understanding of history and from where the millions of special people comes from. u only see end product but the not the science behind it. they have unique products even from communist times. like Kamz trucks that won Paris-dakkar rally 5 out 5 times. I want to see any Chinese machine repeat this under its own intellectual power.

who cares about your excuses. For all your vaunted intellectual power, they don’t explain the bottomline, which is by far the GDP is made up of raw mineral and oil export. That’s the economic structure of a 3rd world country.

and why should they make a commercial product now when Service sector is the dominant economy of the world. In West it is almos 80% of GDP. and in service sector u dont know who is providing the intellectual capital. every firm is multi ethinic.

And Russia have a service sector at all? How can you even have one when you don’t even have proper rule of law, which is the basic investor complaint.

RMAF found even KH-31 better than Harpoon. so when customer want to pay from its own pocket money. the choice is obvious.

Give me proof. The Kh-31 does not even have the range and programming flexbility of the Harpoon.

Brahmos goes 5 m in the end.( and its true ability are not even revealed to the public. See the hidden potential)
so show me how much other subsonic goes in low flight.

5m? Only in the very final phase of flight. Supersonic AshMs generally are around 10 to 30m. You don’t have terrain following autopilot that will work at supersonic speeds, and both drag and turbulence are immense at sea level.

Subsonic AshMs go down to 3m, and one or two like the Gabriel goes down to 2m.

That 6500 L is taken from sinodefense, which I think uses JH-7 figures. Which is not accurate. For example, it still uses 27,500 kg for maximum takeoff, when the latest export version FBC-1 advertises 30,000 kg for maximum takeoff. Again, we know that there have been other changes like greater usage of composite material, lighter avionics in JH-7A from JH-7 that would allow JH-7A to carry more fuel. Also, I don’t know why you insist on comparing F-14 to JH-7A in terms of aerodynamic efficiency. Comparing it with other fighter bombers like Tornado, F-15E and su-34 is a lot more appropriate.

I use the F-14 because those figures are the only ones which I know to be definitely true with the loads given, as opposed to other figures for other planes. Besides, with a max take off weight of 30000 kg, that is closer to the F-14 max takeoff weight than the F-15E. As I said, even if you add 1000 L to the 6500 L figure, or even more – let’s say it now has 8000L. How are you going to get twice the range with a heavier payload? This is not a slight increase, this is a MASSIVE increase in performance that isn’t likely to be achieved on a Spey type engine, even with some weight loss and fuel gain (which at most brings it’s empty weight down to 15000kg and fuel load up to 8000L).

The internal fuel of the F-14 is 9000 litres, while the JH-7’s would be around 6500 litres according to Raygun from his post here: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=55768&page=4. With 2 280 gallon drop tanks the F-14’s fuel capacity jumps to 11000 litres. Even if the figure for the JH-7A’s fuel load is short by 1000 litres, attaining that kind of range with that kind of load just doesn’t seem plausible at all, even with more fuel efficient engines. In fact, the more one looks at the figures, the more ridiculous the 1650km combat radius with 6500 kg payload claim sounds.

That 6500 L is taken from sinodefense, which I think uses JH-7 figures. Which is not accurate. For example, it still uses 27,500 kg for maximum takeoff, when the latest export version FBC-1 advertises 30,000 kg for maximum takeoff. Again, we know that there have been other changes like greater usage of composite material, lighter avionics in JH-7A from JH-7 that would allow JH-7A to carry more fuel. Also, I don’t know why you insist on comparing F-14 to JH-7A in terms of aerodynamic efficiency. Comparing it with other fighter bombers like Tornado, F-15E and su-34 is a lot more appropriate.

To Star49, my original point was that you have no idea of the roles of different aircrafts and weapons in the plaaf arsenal and you just continue to prove that with your posts. If you really want to debate on Russian vs Chinese weapons, we can do this in another thread. Since, I’m already immensely off topic here. I ask the moderator to move these JH-7 posts to another thread if it’s not too much trouble.

The Anti Submarine variant of Klub Missile carries the APR-3E airborne antisubmarine missile , Info on it from the horses mouth

APR-3E

Not enough. And it is still not a totally different class of aircraft. Its relationship to the Su-27 is like the Super Hornet to the Hornet. Not necessasrily better in terms of flight performance. And it still has 3x less fuel than an Tu-16.

It is totally different class and interms of flight profile, strenthening of wings, internal fuel, shape, FBW, Radar etc. can Flanker lift a 3 3000Litre tanks or two moskits. just its three weopon stations provide 8000kg of external load. it can take missiles side by side on centeral paylon. it is totally different level of flexibility. and its specifications have never been revealed. these are old floating around from 90s.

http://www.royfc.com/news/aug/2503aug01.html
The Leninets Holding Company is the developer of the avionics for this aircraft. The airplane provides operation against practically all possible types of targets from low and extremely low altitudes with high probability, reliable negotiation of powerful modern air defense systems, operation in any weather and time of day

http://www.royfc.com/news/mar/0805mar01.html
While speaking of the Su-34, the aircraft builders are brief. They answer many questions in short: this is classified information

Hard to browse through the Chinese news sites since I don’t have Chinese text entry but that was there last February.

so it is not even worth considering.

I’m not going to try to prove that, that’s for the factory. What I do doubt is that an Su-30 will make a better ASM platform, considering that supersonic ASMs are going to cost you what in weight? 2000kg at least? Sunburn is 4000kg. YJ-83 is only 700plus. 4 of them is around 3000kg.

whats the point of carrying four when it cannot even sink a corvette. better carry 6 kh-31 alteast it has supersonic energy. 3 Brahmos should be enough for destroyer size ship considering it has 9 times energy of subsonic. it depends on mission. Su-30 can approach the target faster and turn around faster. simply superior platform.

There are pictures, and the plane is clearly a two seater. First Pace examined the second seat, then allowed to climb and seat inside the front seat.

Plane is cleary two seater but they are not referring to that particular plane.

Even with the Chinese made Su-27s, the Russians are still supposed to warranty all Russian sourced parts, engines, radar, avionics and so on.

It is not clear what kind of support is missing. offcours it cannot be USAF standard as they 250 flight hrs airforce vs 120 flight hrs.

Maybe the US has recorded more tests, but only decide to leak once. Leaking too often to the media and you probably will have an internal clampdown.

thats what i am saying. tommroow they will say 10000km antiship missile.

J-7 and J-8 are not that standard as not all units fly them, snice these other units will also be flying Su-30, Su-27, and J-10. But YJ-8X is a very encompassing and versatile standard since it has both air and sea launched version, launched from destroyers, frigates and FACs, and as well as a sub launched version. It is also now being supplemented by the new YJ-62, already in operational use with 2 destroyers, whose export version is derated at 280km just to meet MTCR.

YJ-8 is the same thing like PL-8 almost on every thing. simple and cheap.

Suffice to say, China has no need for any Russian ASM strike platform with the sole exception if China decides to buy Su-33s for the Varyag. Lack of carrier experience is the big hole here.

the prices of Russian exports are now sky high. without exchange of natural resources i doubt they want to deal on any currency. considering there wage and currency growth.

Because Russian claims can also be doubted.

why it should be doubted. they have 300 years of continous history from Russian Academy of science.

Germany has a way of executing its science and technology into viable, world class products. So does Japan. So does the US. Korea is getting there, and China is working its way up. But where is Russia? Still a massive imbalance in finished and technological goods. So your pure science isn’t being executed properly to produce viable products.

Kind a look at East Germany and its intellectual power under 4 decades of communism. the rest are not worth the example.
u dont have proper understanding of history and from where the millions of special people comes from. u only see end product but the not the science behind it. they have unique products even from communist times. like Kamz trucks that won Paris-dakkar rally 5 out 5 times. I want to see any Chinese machine repeat this under its own intellectual power.

Good for them. But nonetheless, there is very little commercial product coming out of Russia in proportion to its GDP.

and why should they make a commercial product now when Service sector is the dominant economy of the world. In West it is almos 80% of GDP. and in service sector u dont know who is providing the intellectual capital. every firm is multi ethinic.

Harpoon is the current standard which all ASMs are measured against. It is smart and quite nimble. For a given weight, that’s like 3 Harpoons vs. one Club/Brahmos. I would rather have the numerical advantage.

RMAF found even KH-31 better than Harpoon. so when customer want to pay from its own pocket money. the choice is obvious.

Yes they are smart drones, and don’t ask about height. Supersonic ASMs don’t go down as low as subsonic missiles anyway, and you can’t because it is easy for them to maneuver into the water. The Vandal is designed to mimic the Sunburn, Yakhont, Granit, etc, and you can program it anyway you want.

Brahmos goes 5 m in the end.( and its true ability are not even revealed to the public. See the hidden potential)
so show me how much other subsonic goes in low flight.

I would think Spey is more fuel efficient at cruising speed. And frankly, I don’t know what exactly is the internal fuel JH-7A.

The internal fuel of the F-14 is 9000 litres, while the JH-7’s would be around 6500 litres according to Raygun from his post here: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=55768&page=4. With 2 280 gallon drop tanks the F-14’s fuel capacity jumps to 11000 litres. Even if the figure for the JH-7A’s fuel load is short by 1000 litres, attaining that kind of range with that kind of load just doesn’t seem plausible at all, even with more fuel efficient engines. In fact, the more one looks at the figures, the more ridiculous the 1650km combat radius with 6500 kg payload claim sounds.

there is change of wing in Su-34 from prototypes build 2004 onwards. this totally different class of aircraft.

Not enough. And it is still not a totally different class of aircraft. Its relationship to the Su-27 is like the Super Hornet to the Hornet. Not necessasrily better in terms of flight performance. And it still has 3x less fuel than an Tu-16.

so any source for that.

Hard to browse through the Chinese news sites since I don’t have Chinese text entry but that was there last February.

First u try to prove JH-7A combat radius with 7 tons external load?

I’m not going to try to prove that, that’s for the factory. What I do doubt is that an Su-30 will make a better ASM platform, considering that supersonic ASMs are going to cost you what in weight? 2000kg at least? Sunburn is 4000kg. YJ-83 is only 700plus. 4 of them is around 3000kg.

they were not referring directly to Pace twin seater in news report but

There are pictures, and the plane is clearly a two seater. First Pace examined the second seat, then allowed to climb and seat inside the front seat.

Chinese build Su-27 with some russian avionic components.
and there aint any difference between twin seater and single seater interms of support equipment.

Even with the Chinese made Su-27s, the Russians are still supposed to warranty all Russian sourced parts, engines, radar, avionics and so on.

or they just want to publicise only one test. It is US discretion what to publicize and what not. J-7/J-8 are also pretty standard so?

Maybe the US has recorded more tests, but only decide to leak once. Leaking too often to the media and you probably will have an internal clampdown.

J-7 and J-8 are not that standard as not all units fly them, snice these other units will also be flying Su-30, Su-27, and J-10. But YJ-8X is a very encompassing and versatile standard since it has both air and sea launched version, launched from destroyers, frigates and FACs, and as well as a sub launched version. It is also now being supplemented by the new YJ-62, already in operational use with 2 destroyers, whose export version is derated at 280km just to meet MTCR.

Suffice to say, China has no need for any Russian ASM strike platform with the sole exception if China decides to buy Su-33s for the Varyag. Lack of carrier experience is the big hole here.

why they need third party?

Because Russian claims can also be doubted.

so scientist should work in factories producing cheap goods. by that standard even Germany is poor the world largest exporter. $1.5Trillion but most of them are not end products for consumers.

Germany has a way of executing its science and technology into viable, world class products. So does Japan. So does the US. Korea is getting there, and China is working its way up. But where is Russia? Still a massive imbalance in finished and technological goods. So your pure science isn’t being executed properly to produce viable products.

the only place where wages are constant for factory workers in China because of rural migration. why russia needs factories when they can get high paying service sector jobs. wage growth is 30%.

Good for them. But nonetheless, there is very little commercial product coming out of Russia in proportion to its GDP.

so they should design it. Just like BMW and Mercedes.

Harpoon is the low end of antiship missiles as compared to Club/Brahmos. India is considering it for helis.

Harpoon is the current standard which all ASMs are measured against. It is smart and quite nimble. For a given weight, that’s like 3 Harpoons vs. one Club/Brahmos. I would rather have the numerical advantage.

are they smart drones ?and and at what height.

Yes they are smart drones, and don’t ask about height. Supersonic ASMs don’t go down as low as subsonic missiles anyway, and you can’t because it is easy for them to maneuver into the water. The Vandal is designed to mimic the Sunburn, Yakhont, Granit, etc, and you can program it anyway you want.

well, I can see where you skepticism comes from. Again, I don’t have the drag figure on F-14 and JH-7A. I’d rather a non-swept wing fighter like F-15E get compared to JH-7A in this sense. I would think Spey is more fuel efficient at cruising speed. And frankly, I don’t know what exactly is the internal fuel JH-7A.

Spey may be more efficient ( A big if considering royal navy quickly hand over those underpowered and maintaince intensive to RAF) if bomber is clean. the momen u load it up with 4 ot 5 tons external weopons. ur underpowered jet wants afterburner to lift up. F-15E has access power to float around in nonafterburner.

it’s not 3000km, it’s 3500km. 3000 km was before prototype 04.
Same with the FBC-1 figures, they haven’t been updated for a while.

there is some changes to newer FC-1 that may have increased its fuel capacity and hence range little bit but that happen in 2006. just look at the picture what prototype is shown. the page does not look old.

so what great things happened with FBC-1/JH-7A in past one to 3 years. that change ferry range into operational range with 6.5tons external load.?

That still doesn’t address the great discrepancy in an analogous comparison between the F-14 and the JH-7A. Is the JH-7A that fuel efficient to get a doubling in range with a heavier payload? Not likely. Is it that efficient aerodynamically? Also not likely. And yet it can do that without any external fuel tanks (which the F-14 required to get the said range) or in-flight refueling? I say a healthy dose of skepticism is in order.

well, I can see where you skepticism comes from. Again, I don’t have the drag figure on F-14 and JH-7A. I’d rather a non-swept wing fighter like F-15E get compared to JH-7A in this sense. I would think Spey is more fuel efficient at cruising speed. And frankly, I don’t know what exactly is the internal fuel JH-7A.

This is from export website. the same website puts FC-1 ferry range 3000KM.(which is obviously with 3 drop tanks).
Even these figures should be taken with heavy dose of skepticism as Chinese ET are small relatively for size of aircraft.

it’s not 3000km, it’s 3500km. 3000 km was before prototype 04.
Same with the FBC-1 figures, they haven’t been updated for a while.

This is from export website. the same website puts FC-1 ferry range 3000KM.(which is obviously with 3 drop tanks).
Even these figures should be taken with heavy dose of skepticism as Chinese ET are small relatively for size of aircraft.
In F-4K these engines got only 10% improvement over J-79 but much worse performance at altitude. This JH-7A will take for ever to get upt to speed and and altitude.

http://www.catic.com.cn/en/Product_Server/products_intro.asp?list=&Content_id=2467&TypeTreeID=1833
The FBC-1 is a two-seat, twin-engine, supersonic fighter bomber for carrying out air to ground/sea attack and air interception. It is powered by two FWS-9 engines and equipped with advanced fire control and integrated avionics system. A variety of weapons such as air-to-air missiles, anti-ship missiles, air-to-ground missiles and guided bombers can be carried by the FBC-1.
Dimensions
Overall length 22.325m
Wing span 12.705m
Overall height 6.575m
Weights and Payload
Max. take-off weight 28,475kg
Max. external load 6,500kg
Performance
Max. Mach number 1.7
Service ceiling 15,600m
Max. g limit 7g
Operational radius 1,650km
Ferry range 3,650km

I like to think about it this way. JH-7A doesn’t use ET from what I’ve seen in the past, although Crobato can correct me here. It doesn’t use any kind in-flight refueling. I read that J-10 has a combat radius of 1100 km with 3 external fuel tanks + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8 and part of the problem with that is the combat radius is still inadequate for escorting JH-7A.

That still doesn’t address the great discrepancy in an analogous comparison between the F-14 and the JH-7A. Is the JH-7A that fuel efficient to get a doubling in range with a heavier payload? Not likely. Is it that efficient aerodynamically? Also not likely. And yet it can do that without any external fuel tanks (which the F-14 required to get the said range) or in-flight refueling? I say a healthy dose of skepticism is in order.

Maximum take-off weight: 27,500 kg
Internal fuel: 6,540 kg
Drop tanks: One 1,000 kg + two 600 kg; or three 1,000 kg
Maximum speed: Mach 1.69 (at 11,000 m)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m
Range: Ferry range 3,650 km,

http://www.wforum.com/specials/upload/232744.jpg

Ferry range is without weapons-load always.

well, that picture is no longer there, but all I can say is that wforum is junk as a source.

A F-14A Tomcat with 8 Mk83s and 2 280Gallon drop tanks (about 4500kg total payload) has a combat radius of only 405nm, but a JH-7A has a combat radius of 890nm with a 6500kg payload? Doesn’t smell quite right.

I like to think about it this way. JH-7A doesn’t use ET from what I’ve seen in the past, although Crobato can correct me here. It doesn’t use any kind in-flight refueling. I read that J-10 has a combat radius of 1100 km with 3 external fuel tanks + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8 and part of the problem with that is the combat radius is still inadequate for escorting JH-7A.

That particular picture (both of them!) is a CG render, but there are some real photos of JH-7As with tanks:

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/groundattack/images/jh7_01large.jpg

(Single piece windscreen and low-intensity formation lights, should be an -A)

hmm, I wonder what source you read that said this. The source I read said JH-7A (not JH-7) reaches 1650 KM combat radius with 6500 kg of payload. Didn’t mention the flight altitude though, so I assume it’s the most optimal one. And also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen JH-7A carry external fuel tanks.

Maximum take-off weight: 27,500 kg
Internal fuel: 6,540 kg
Drop tanks: One 1,000 kg + two 600 kg; or three 1,000 kg
Maximum speed: Mach 1.69 (at 11,000 m)
Service ceiling: 16,000 m
Range: Ferry range 3,650 km,

http://www.wforum.com/specials/upload/232744.jpg

Ferry range is without weapons-load always.

Su-30 and Su-34 cannot sustain Mach 1.2/Mach 1.4 at low altitude flight. What makes you think they can? Drag eats up power, and Su-30/34 wings are designed for maneuverbility not low interdiction speed. Going supersonic at low altitude will burn up your fuel rather quickly. You’re the one short of proof, trying to say you can intercept a low flying interdictor. Furthermore, design of the Flanker, meant more for medium altitude performance, isn’t meant to ride smoothly over low air turbelence. I doubt that an Su-30 can chase down an Su-24 Fencer or MiG-27 for this reason.

there is change of wing in Su-34 from prototypes build 2004 onwards. this totally different class of aircraft.

That is a news report. A published article.

so any source for that.

Go ahead and try to prove that Phazotron has model called JL-10A.

First u try to prove JH-7A combat radius with 7 tons external load?

What nonsense. The Su-27 Pace was shown is a two seater. China does not make two seaters. All the two seater Su-27s were imported from Russia, made by Irkut specifically.

China can certainly make the Su-27 airframe but chose not to license certain components such as avionics since they after all obsolete and have already designed domestic counterparts for those, and these are intended for the J-11B.

they were not referring directly to Pace twin seater in news report but Chinese build Su-27 with some russian avionic components.
and there aint any difference between twin seater and single seater interms of support equipment.

It means they are able to catch a single test. It does not mean the US were able to detect the others. You are talking about the missiles where there is a lot of pictures of it being launched from ships, and one which is already standard in planes, subs and ships of the PLA.

or they just want to publicise only one test. It is US discretion what to publicize and what not. J-7/J-8 are also pretty standard so?

In other words, there is no third party to verify your results. How quiant. Meaning its still subject to doubt.

why they need third party?

Irrelevant. Despite your SCIENCE, its still a poor country with a massive trade imbalance with China for basic finished goods.

so scientist should work in factories producing cheap goods. by that standard even Germany is poor the world largest exporter. $1.5Trillion but most of them are not end products for consumers.

Oh you mean they got no money. You don’t have high wages with a depressed economy.

the only place where wages are constant for factory workers in China because of rural migration. why russia needs factories when they can get high paying service sector jobs. wage growth is 30%.

Bull. You think that the US cannot design a missile isn’t smarter than Club/Brahmos?

so they should design it. Just like BMW and Mercedes.

You really have no idea what a Harpoon can do. Harpoons can set themselves up for a multiaxis attack. They can do waypoints towards the target. They can go past the target and attack from another direction. They can be diverted midway in flight to attack another target or if the primary target has already been sunk. They can respond to changes of enemy tracking radar to determine if a lock on is present and will try to make evasive maneuvers.

Harpoon is the low end of antiship missiles as compared to Club/Brahmos. India is considering it for helis.

Lol. Standards have successfully intercepted high supersonic Vandal drones. that is for sure.

are they smart drones ?and and at what height.

I havent seen evidence of 7 tons sorties on internal fuel alone? that u keep referring

Su-30 can fly low at Mach 1.2 and Su-34 can go even lower to tree top height at Mach 1.4 (fly by abstacle)and u say it cannot catch obsolete
underpowered JH-7 whose Mach 1 is even in doubt even in clean configuration. just look at Sens Post. nothing can compensate underpowered jet especailly in nonafterburning thrust. AL-31 is very good in non afterburning almost 7600KG and 9,700KG for 117S and AL-31FM in between. they are of totally different capability in economical crusie.

Su-30 and Su-34 cannot sustain Mach 1.2/Mach 1.4 at low altitude flight. What makes you think they can? Drag eats up power, and Su-30/34 wings are designed for maneuverbility not low interdiction speed. Going supersonic at low altitude will burn up your fuel rather quickly. You’re the one short of proof, trying to say you can intercept a low flying interdictor. Furthermore, design of the Flanker, meant more for medium altitude performance, isn’t meant to ride smoothly over low air turbelence. I doubt that an Su-30 can chase down an Su-24 Fencer or MiG-27 for this reason.

these are unproven stories to create false impression.

That is a news report. A published article.

Radar?

Go ahead and try to prove that Phazotron has model called JL-10A.

that Su-27 shown was made in China so it just show poorly on China that even after 15 years it cannot make parts for it. Russia factories are either closing because of high wages or under renovation. so there is less tendency for export except for technical cooperation.

What nonsense. The Su-27 Pace was shown is a two seater. China does not make two seaters. All the two seater Su-27s were imported from Russia, made by Irkut specifically.

China can certainly make the Su-27 airframe but chose not to license certain components such as avionics since they after all obsolete and have already designed domestic counterparts for those, and these are intended for the J-11B.

they a confirm a single test (who knows they may even exaggarating it for

It means they are able to catch a single test. It does not mean the US were able to detect the others. You are talking about the missiles where there is a lot of pictures of it being launched from ships, and one which is already standard in planes, subs and ships of the PLA.

there own purpose). Russia does not need any external confirmation.

In other words, there is no third party to verify your results. How quiant. Meaning its still subject to doubt.

There Science is proven. u have examples of Professors directly hired by Ivyleague like Stanford from 70s Phd batch when China was making bicycles under communism.

Irrelevant. Despite your SCIENCE, its still a poor country with a massive trade imbalance with China for basic finished goods.

Just India alone has conducted 13 Brahmos tests.

Good for them.

Russia factories are either closing because of high wages or under renovation. so there is less tendency for export except for technical cooperation.

Oh you mean they got no money. You don’t have high wages with a depressed economy.

drones does not have software brain that makes Club/brahmos type missiels so expensive. it isnot the speed alone but artificial intelligence that makes there end trajectory so un predictable. it is not a straight line.

Bull. You think that the US cannot design a missile isn’t smarter than Club/Brahmos?

You really have no idea what a Harpoon can do. Harpoons can set themselves up for a multiaxis attack. They can do waypoints towards the target. They can go past the target and attack from another direction. They can be diverted midway in flight to attack another target or if the primary target has already been sunk. They can respond to changes of enemy tracking radar to determine if a lock on is present and will try to make evasive maneuvers.

SAMs near to the target and than SAMs does not where the target will be next moment at Mach 3 speed at such low altitude. It is near impossible to get a hit.

Lol. Standards have successfully intercepted high supersonic Vandal drones. that is for sure.

A F-14A Tomcat with 8 Mk83s and 2 280Gallon drop tanks (about 4500kg total payload) has a combat radius of only 405nm, but a JH-7A has a combat radius of 890nm with a 6500kg payload? Doesn’t smell quite right.

The JH-7 has a transit range of ~3600 km. That was flown clean, but with max ETs, at ~38000 feet and ~Mach 0,8.
The same transit flown at 1000 feet will cut that range to <1800 km, but transit speed is down to Mach 0,6 with similar power-settings. All that with max possible fuel load and no weapons-load.
In an optimum hi-lo-hi profil with max fuel and ~2 tons of weaponary the JH-7 may reach an AR of ~1000 km, but that will be halved to an AR of ~500 km in lo-lo-lo profil.
The advertisement data are not wrong in general, but can never be reached together. None lies, when leaving aside important details?!

hmm, I wonder what source you read that said this. The source I read said JH-7A (not JH-7) reaches 1650 KM combat radius with 6500 kg of payload. Didn’t mention the flight altitude though, so I assume it’s the most optimal one. And also, I don’t think I’ve ever seen JH-7A carry external fuel tanks.