tphuangit still has a bit to go, going by the WS-10A schedule. It will probably be ready for mass production later 2008 or early 2009.
tphuangthis press release does not say that letter 8 was added because of Chinese order. It is continuation of series.
J-10 cannot beat Flanker in 1 vs 1 fight. Flanker is not MIG-21. It has generous fuel capacitiy to engage afterburner. And Flanker carry more load out of BVR and WVR missiles so it can fire more missiles in BVR fight and can enter dog fight in favourable position. another is Radar bigger FOV and IRST advantage for silent attack aganist non stealthy fighter like J-10. even simple TWR of flanker is better with non-afterburning thrust. Knaapo put Su-27 range at 3530KM vs 3000KM for heavier Su-30MK.
PLA daily would tell you different. Actually, most account of J-10 vs flankers say that flankers simply can’t shake off J-10. And besides, why do you need to carry 6 BVR missiles when 2 is enough to shoot the other guy down? Radar is bigger, but the tracking range of J-10 is greater than that of MKK. TWR of flanker is not better. For J-10 with WS-10A, it’s 13.5 tonne/11 tonne.
Even J-8F right now has better TW ratio than su-27.
However China has nothing in the class ofthe Meteor or Python V so the J-10 is still not better than earlier MiG-29s and Su-27s
I deliberately deleted my original post, because I didn’t feel like extending this into a long argument. Thank you very much.
Why does J-10 need Meteor or python v to beat earlier mig-29s and su-27s? Those 27sk we got can’t even fire R-77. They can’t even beat PL-12 equipped J-8F.
tphuangBy the time the second batch comes the PAF may have something even better from Euro vendors. If the PRCs equipment was good enough in this case, I doubt an international tender would even be called.
Yeah, but there was also such a tender for the first 50. Everyone thought it was going to be Grifo until late 2004. So, it’s just up to PAF to give PRC its requirements. Also, having Western competition will just force PRC to offer more advanced stuff.
Yes I do remember selex or something being mentioned, but I doubt PAF is in any state to procure them soon given the current political and economic scenario. I guess the decision was taken after reports of LCA with El-2052 started circulating on the forums.
I’m sure they are looking over their options carefully. Although, having AESA does not necessarily mean better. If you take a look at Vixen brochure, it really isn’t that impressive.
tphuangAnkush
To me, it suggests that the PRCs radar and AAM development has quite a ways to go. The RC-400 is inferior to the RDY2 latest variant in some key parameters, considering that the former is but a scaled down variant of the latter. And the SD-10 was touted as an uberweapon.
All in all, I would say that theres quite a ways to go yet, before the PAF which is having to match the IAFs tech heavy acquisitions, will be satisfied with Chinese avionics and gear.
PRC hasn’t made their counter offer yet. They will offer something better when the competition for the 2nd batch of JF-17s come along.
tphuangdon’t know how this have anything to do with Iran and J-10, but missiles is part of what the package brings. J-10 has a lot more than just PL-9C + SD-10 has to offer. Still, J-10 will not be exported to Iran anytime soon.
tphuangYou’re ignoring the crucial factor in all this: the circumstance we are discussing (the only one in which I would think the USA would cancel Chinese bonds) is a war between China & the USA. At that point, the impact on bond dealers is a trivial matter. Also, there will be no expiring Chinese bonds to be repaid, if they’re cancelled. US government debt will be reduced by the value of the cancelled bonds, so no need to sell new bonds to replace them. Nobody will take it amiss, as it is accepted that going to war with a country gives it the right to cancel any debts it has to you (though not vice-versa, so if the USA started the war, it would have to find a good reason for cancellation).
so, what if they are canceled? Have you checked your debt clock? That thing isn’t coming down. US treasury needs to issue more bonds to cover for the greater debt. By canceling it, you are immediately reduce it by $340 billion (that’s about the amount of US treasury bought so far). Now, the national debt is over $9 trillion right now. Let’s just say $10 trillion for any war scenario. If you cancel 3.4% of your debt, that will reduce buyers + lower credit rating. Now, countries like Russia will not want to buy US treasury either. You might be looking at having to bump the yield by 100 basis point to cover that. That will work out to 100 billion extra in coupon payments you have to dish out every year. Now, even if I’m generous here and it only goes up to LIBOR rate, you are still looking at 50 billion every year. Add in other factors to the economy, what kind of long term gain does US gov’t get out of this?
The chief factors determining views of US creditworthiness would be opinions on the economic impact of the war on the USA, not concern over US trustworthiness.
[edit] I see Sens has beaten me to it.
right, how do you think US treasury manage a AAA rating and UK treasury can only get a AA rating? You think that’s going to continue if US suddenly cancels 3.4% of its debt unilaterally?
tphuangExactly- the number of times I have heard the above silliness about the PRC controlling the US $$ boggles my mind. If the US says f*off to the PRC at times of war and cancels those bonds, its not the US which will be suffering, thats for sure.
wow, do you have any idea what that would do to the entire financial institution in North America? The damage on any company dealing with bonds will be astronomical. Not so simple, trust me. My work deals with stuff like this.
If the dollar was really controlled by the central bank of China, the dollar would be stronger. And those US bonds aren’t a trump card, they’re a potential weakness. If a war, they’d be subject to cancellation. If you look up how US Treasury bonds are sold, you’ll find that sovereign holdings, such as those of China, aren’t sold as pieces of paper which you can swap for cash, but as credits to an account held by the US Treasury, in the name of Chinas central bank.
you do realize China doesn’t have to “sell” any bond right? As long as it stops buying treasury notes, the previous ones will expire. That will have to be replaced by another buyer. Think about it this way, let’s say for any given period of time, China has 10% of its holdings expiring (ie: the principle is paid back). That means, in order to maintain it’s holding, China has to buy the same amount of expired treasury bonds. So, if US decides to cancel China’s bonds, even if we ignore the credit rating hit and ripple effect on all other bonds, it would have to find other buyers to buy the expiring previously Chinese owned bonds. And over the course of next 5 years, when most of China’s previous holdings would’ve expired, it would have to find someone to buy all the bonds that China previously owned. In this case, you probably have to increase the yields for all treasury bills/notes to get more people interested in purchasing treasury bonds rather than other higher yielding investment. And with the drop in credit rating, you will have to raise yields even more to compensate for no longer being AAA. And there is the issue of bond trading, now you will have a situation where there are far more sellers than buyers, so all the bonds will be sold at a discount to would it would’ve been previously. That has untold consequences too.
tphuangIran to buy 24 jet fighters from China
By Yossi Melman
Iran has signed a deal with China to buy two squadrons of J-10 fighter planes that are based on Israeli technology, the Russian news agency Novosti reported yesterday.The 24 aircraft are based on technology and components provided to China by Israel following the cancellation of the Lavi project in the mid-1980s. The engines of the J-10 are Russian-made.
The total cost of the planes is estimated at $1 billion, and deliveries are expected between 2008 and 2010.
.calculate the possibility of 2 years of delays and you can get a time frame of 2008-2012
China denies sale of warplanes to Iran based on Israeli know-how
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent and The Associated Press
China denied Thursday published reports it had agreed to sell its homegrown fighter jets to Iran, saying no talks had taken place.
Iran has signed a deal with China to buy two squadrons of J-10 fighter planes that are based on Israeli technology, the Russian news agency Novosti reported Tuesday.
The 24 aircraft are based on technology and components provided to China by Israel following the cancellation of the Lavi project in the mid-1980s. The engines of the J-10 are Russian-made.
Advertisement“It’s not true, it is an irresponsible report,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters. “China has not had talks with Iran on J-10 jets.”
Chinese state media revealed at the end of last year that the Chinese air force was equipped with a new generation of the J-10 fighter plane.
Ties between China and Iran are largely absent of the tensions between that country and the West, and it remains an important oil supplier to feed China’s growing economy.
The J-10 has been in development since the late 1980s, according to Global Security, and has utilized Russian technology.
The total cost of the planes is estimated at $1 billion, and deliveries are expected between 2008 and 2010.
The estimated operational range of the aircraft, with external fuel tanks, is 3,000 kilometers, which means Israel falls within their radius of operation.
During the 1980s, Israel Aircraft Industries, along with U.S. firms, developed a multi-role aircraft that was considered the most advanced of its type at the time.
Following the development of a prototype, the Reagan administration stopped funding for the project, bringing about the cancellation of the joint project.
Israel then began selling some of the systems it had developed to various countries, including China.
Experts point out that even with these aircraft, Iran’s air force is no match for Israel’s or even Saudi Arabia’s.
Some analysts expressed criticism at what they called Israel’s “short sighted” and lax export policies.
This is not the first time Israeli components were part of weapons systems aimed at Israel. Some reports claimed that China sold Saudi Arabia long-range missiles containing Israeli know-how.
There are so many reasons on why China should not export this plane to Iran, that I find it difficult to believe how much press it’s getting.
tphuangWhere should it be then? Last I heard it operated within the Bohai Gulf, making Huludao a possibility.
are we thinking of the same ship right now? 891 photos have always been coming out of Shanghai. Last picture in August, I can see tall buildings all around it.
tphuangFirst of all the 092 pic is added on later. We’re not even sure the first set of gear is for sure for 092. Notice the caption only say ruduction gear of nuclear submarine. But since it doesn’t say new SSn we’re assuming the first pic is for 092.
The second pic on the other hand show a set of new gears. Although the layout resembles the first set, I don’t think they are the same.
What’s bothering me is the clear lack of noise reduction measures. ie rubber seperators to decrease vibration.
so, not enough evidence to suggest much of anything. I personally don’t know anything about reduction gear to provide any further analysis, but maybe you do.
tphuangWe have no way of knowing how much J-7G costs for PLAAF. Since missile and spares are not included in regular PLAAF precurement budget but by general armament division. What we do know is that performance wise J-7G and J-7Ni is roughly similar while soviet mig-21 export and domestic mig 21 differes by a magnitude.
considering that Jf-17 was quoted as less than $15 million for plaaf, I’d say J-7G would have to be a lot cheaper. less than $5 million is the number that’s mostly floated around. J-7G -> WP-14+KLJ-6E, F-7N -> WP-13B+SY-80. clearly superior
I’ve already made the comparison…
I disagree with the assessment that J-8H is inferior to F-8IIM
LOL the J-8F has no name recognition going for it. Even if China were to offer it it won’t make any difference.
On the other hand the F-8IIM is widely known multirole aircraft. It doesn’t even need any publicity but it still failed.
huh? F-8IIM a none existent aircraft is now widely known? How many people do you think know about F-8IIM? It doesn’t need publicity? Do you honestly think people buying the planes would look at F-8IIM as just a display of J-8II. Given the two J-8II variants in J-8F and F-8IIM, there is such a huge disparity in performance between the two that no amount of publicity can cover up.
tphuanghere’s what you wanted…
second pic for comparison
hmmm, that looks like a 092 to me, http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/sub/type092xia4.asp
or maybe you weren’t talking about 093/094?
I suspect the ship with the helo pad is the 891 test ship.
891 shouldn’t be anywhere here.
tphuangI think you have a wrong concept of Chinese export system. China never develop a monkey version as in the case of USSR where the plane is a true downgrade of capabilities. Chinese only offer different systems for export than the systems intended for PLA. But it does not mean that Export product is always a bastadized version and on the contrary Chinese export products were mostly more advanced than domestic counterparts due to imposed performence requirements of export customers while PLA was cutting cost. (ex PLZ45 for Kuwait vs Type 83 for PLA,)
You are obviously going to get more profit out of an export sales. For example, the one to Nigeria. Does anyone really believe PLAAF pays $11 million for each J-7G? (and it uses a more powerful engine than the export F-7s)
FBC-1 came before Jh-7A was ever developed. FBC-1 was promoted for export in 1998 but due restricted utility, performance and fact that even PLA had rejected it, FBC-1 was obsolete for the export market.
F-8IIM if it was even intended for export came before J-8F was finalized. Plus J-8IIM had the advantage of being publicized by the Russians.
If the much touted J-8IIM could not attract any customers how would J-8F do any better?
A lot of products are advertised before they are developed. You should be comparing them with domestic products also in development at that time. As for J-8F, it’s a much better fighter than F-8IIM, that’s why.
tphuangAgain, you have no idea of what the term means but you still insist on using it. If you understand military exports and the history of Chinese aircraft, you would know that the F-8IIm was first offered in 1996. The F-8IIM offered was better than any known variant of J-8. The J-8F appeared years after the F-8IIM.
Again, it is pure idiocy to think in this way. It’s tantamount to saying that the F-15C is a “monkey” version of F-15E. They are two different variants from two different time periods.
Again, they are offering a new variant of F-8IIM now that is a lot different from the one in 1996 and it’s still nowhere to J-8F. I don’t know why you keep on insisting that it’s same as the one from 1996.
Looking even back in 1996, it just had a test flight, that doesn’t mean it was actually ready to be delivered then. They were still developing it. You can make your own judgment on whether you think J-8H (which first flew in 1995) is better or F-8IIM. I’ve made my. PLAAF sure put orders in for J-8H but none for F-8IIM.
There are far more credible stories of Iranians disliking any Chinese aircraft (and who wouldn’t when you have the F-14) much less an old Soviet-style aircraft like the J-8II.
I absolutely doubt that the Iranians asked for the J-8 of any variants. I’m far more inclined to believe the rumors that they asked for the JH-7/A and were denied. The JH-7A would have caused a massive reaction from the US and the West because of the anti-shipping aspect.
The J-8? Highly unlikely. It makes absolutely no sense to anyone who followed the Iranian air force.
yeah, with old J-7s, what a surprise.
Do you know how good J-8F is?
and funny that you mentionned, JH-7A, cause FBC-1 as explained by Crobato is also downgraded compared to JH-7A.
tphuangBoss….This is what I said and quote,
Schema M88-2 Thrust (From Wiki),
11,250 lbf (50.04 kN) military thrust
17,000 lbf (75.62 kN) with afterburnerIf Kaveri sees the light of the day, then We all know that Kaveri will comfortably exceed this thrust level whose (The K9 standard being made by GRTE) design goal is itself 20000 lbs and the K10 standard with lead-assist help is stated to even exceed that.
It does not makes any sense to produce or keep under service two engines of roughly the same class (by thrust), thus lets select Rafale, let it come into service with M88 engines, till kaveri matures and then put it/integrate in with Schemas help.
Meanwhile bring in Schema instead Saturn for the K10 standard in the lead-assist and vice-versa role to re-do the certain components which GRTE wants a re-done.
Rafale with >20000 lb’s afterburning thrust would be simply awesome.
It’s not about the thrust, but rather whether it can fit into Rafale or not.
And if you compare engine, it shouldn’t be about thrust, but rather T/W ratio.
Sign In
