tphuangTo Radar, YourFather has some kind of hatred toward China. He thinks everything China develops is junk. So anything that is hard to quantify, he just assumes it’s non existing.
Wrong. The SPS-49, the SPS-55 and CAS can continue to track other targets. Only the STIR would be tied up when illuminating a target. Meaning that other targets still get a minimum of 1 sec updates.
wow, CAS can suddenly track more than 1 target now? Why don’t you show some evidence of that.
You assumed that the 054A had a radar integrator. You have yet to provide evidence other than ‘look, the test ship has so-and-so systems on board, and that must mean that a radar integrator is present’.
this is really getting ridiculous. As I said a billion times, you cannot possibly have radars in today’s battlefield that doesn’t have some level of integration with each other. What you should be arguing about is comparing the level of integration.
Sure? Then explain why the Lesorub system of the Slava has the Top Pair feeding it but not the Top Steer? A CDS is a track-keeping system. It may be that only one radar feeds the system. A CDS is not an indication that radar integration exists.
what era was that? As I said before, sensors on 051C and 052B are just put on the ships without being tested together. So if the integration is not as high, then they won’t bother with the test ship. But in this case, they’ve actually put the entire set of sensors on 891. I do suggest you follow 891 a little more, so you will have an appreciation of this.
SR-64 may be able to provide command updates to more missiles, but how do you know it can track more targets than the OHP? You have the track capacity for the SR-64? Or the OHP, for that matter?
OHP at any given time, can handle no more than 2 targets. That’s well known. I’m sure SR-64 can do far better than that (at least the # of FCRs). You can claim the number of targets tracked on OHP is more, but it can’t engage them. Sea Eagle can also track many targets, but it’s not engaging them either.
I highlighted the important points. It seems that those points are making you uncomfortable. :rolleyes:
It’s really annoying. You came in with an extremely low view of a ship you don’t know much about and then jump the gun on everything I said.
So requirements equate to capability? Ever occured to you that capability might not have met requirements? Going by the way you assume things, why dont you assume that the need to upgrade to a MFR means that the 054A’s capabilities are regarded as unsatisfactory?
All air defense systems are tested before they go on the ship. They don’t build the ship until the AD systems meet the requirements. That’s just their way of doing things.
take it to another level. SR-64 does not have capability to track targets at far range due to its high frequency and it’s emphasis on being able to accurately track stealthy targets at high supersonic speeds. MFR with greater sophistication may not be able to track anti-ship missiles as well, but will improve on searching capability (in conjunction with Sea Eagle), track more targets and then be able to give data uplink to more missiles.
If the 054A cannot detect the targets in time, then the number of channels is irrelevant. The Hanit is an extreme case of that. Similarly, if the target is only detected at extremely close range, than the effect of that may be such that having more channels might not compensate for having only 2 channels but having early warning.
have you been reading at all? SR-64 sacrificed range just to be able to reliably track stealthy supersonic missiles. Even a ship like 052C still retains SR-64 to be able to accurately track sea-skimmers. If there is anything that shouldn’t be question, that’s SR-64’s reliability.
baseline 7? First, SM-1s are divided in Blocks. Not baselines. And there is no evidence of a Block 7 version.
SM-2 on baseline 7 Aegis. See the original question.
Against a saturation strike comprising these targets, the OHP will probably need the Mk 92 mod 12 upgrade, TMS upgrade and ESSMs to be viable. Then again, it is not certain that the 054A is viable against these threats either. Note also that the threat does not solely comprise these high end missiles. In fact, these are probably still the minority.
Aside from the obvious point that HH-16 was developed recently with this kind of threats in mind and that the system was developed to counter this thread. you should also check up on the capability of Type 730 CIWS vs concurrent supersonic targets.
On the other hand, against submarines, how well will the 054A do compared to the OHP?
depends on the threat. It’s definitely far more noisy, not really good for ASW. If you are not going into deep waters, 054A’s existing sonar + ka-28 can do the job, although not as well. But at this point, PLAN seemed to not be fans of using surface combatants as main ASW assets, so that’s why AAW on 054A is emphasized and has high requirements.
tphuangCrobato Crobato ha negato
The report of Limin and Salyut working togather is from TASS, i did not make it up, they are working in several programs, you are the one who is in denial, because you are the one who can not believe TASS because obviously it does not go well with your view of the Chinese-russian relations.
They even interview the General director of Limin, Qiang Wei, well they even have his picture:D .
here is the proof
DO RUSSIAN SOURCES KNOW ABOUT THE WS-10 AND THE J-11B?
The answer is yes they do, and they do not deny it, they even claim the builder of the WS-10 engine otherwise known as Tayhan, Limin is in fact working with Salyut the maker of the AL-31F
http://www.arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=32242&cid=124Отвечая на вопрос китайского журналиста, как “Салют” планирует расширять сотрудничество с “Лимин”, генеральный директор московского предприятия заявил, что “мы работаем над повышением надежности и тяги, и над абсолютной взаимозаменяемостью этого двигателя. Мы знаем, что начало эксплуатации двигателя обычно связано с определенными трудностями, которые могут продлиться достаточно долго по времени. Поэтому не исключено, что в течение какого-то периода для “Супер-10” будут поставляться двигатели и “Лимин”, и “Салюта”.
they even talked to Qiang Wei who is General director of Limin, also they said Salyut is working with Limin they said in fact that Salyut and Limin are working to improve the reliability and power, and the absolute interchangeability of the engine. We know that in its early developement, the engine WS-10 TAYHAN, will have some difficulties, which may last for a long time. It is possible that during a period the “J-10” will use engines from both Limin, and “Salyut
It’s good that they know about Taihang, since everyone in the military community knows that engine by now. I don’t see how them knowing WS-10A has anything to do with anything.
As mentioned everywhere, J-11B uses all Chinese components. No amount of knowledge on Russian side is going to change that.
tphuangNO J-10 Always was there for a Fighter contract to which PAF always refered as High Tech fighter other then F-16
that’s because they just started negotiating on buying the plane. But the stuff with plus one requirement and J-10 winning is well known, I have the JDW article where PAF ACM admitted this. Do you want me to post it?
tphuangIt can be, if you are able to set aside your nationalism and emotions, and be ready to evaluate based on facts and not conjectures.
I’ve been explaining. It’s you that hasn’t stopped with the insults. So, who really can’t set aside emotions.
The CAS rotates at 60RPM. And the IADT combines input from the CAS, the SPS-49, the STIR and the SPS-55, making for a far higher cumulative refresh rate than just the SR-64 operating alone.
That’s the problem right? By combining CAS, STIR and SPS-55, you can only get the updated data for the targets tracked by CAS and STIR. Which means you can only reliably track the two missiles. The other targets, you can only get a refresh every 4 seconds at the best case scenario. SR-64 alone can reliably track far more than that.
Indeed you were trying to compare the early detection/tracking capability of the two ships. The problem as you yourself admitted is you don’t know what is on the 054A, yet you proceeded to state with confidence that the 054A was better in that area than the OHP. You stated the 054A’s superiority unambiguously, yet you are unable to prove that it is so. I said that there was no indication that the 054A was necessarily superior, since the OHP had a radar integrator which sharply reduced reaction time against low-E threats. Considering that reaction time is just an important a factor as number of fire channels when taking into account small, fast low-E threats, and the fact that it is unknown how well the 054A compares to the OHP in that regard, how can one assume that the 054A is better as you claimed?
I never admitted anywhere I don’t know what’s on 054A, I said it’s hard to quantify the integration software on the two ships. Read below on the rest.
You don’t know how it is integrated, yet you again proceeded with confidence in trying to use that as ‘proof’ that somehow the 054A had a radar integrator. You just love assuming things up.
And so how does having these systems on the test ship prove that a radar integrator is on board the 054A? Even if you are right, and they are testing something similar on board, that means that the 054A doesn’t have it on board yet. Or is the PLAN into fielding systems before testing them?
this is a new generation of sensors for 054 series for the next batch. But the thing is, the previous generations have also been tested. We only know this next batch with take sensor quality + integration to a new level.
By the way, as long as you have any kind of combat system, there is always going to be some form of radar integration. Now, what you should be asking me all alone is has 054A taken this radar integration to the level of IADT. This is the areas that I’ve been saying is hard to quantify unless I have the two systems go through the same set of tests.
It’s interesting, if you look at it, SR-64 alone can track more targets and give command updates to more missiles than your entire integrated system. Btw, with the new MFR that they are going to put on 054 series, that’s only going to make the gap larger. And having an additional searching radar only augments the capability.
Where have I made ANY explicit claim that the OHP was better than the 054A in early detection? All I have mentioned till now was that were the 054As without a radar integrator to combine all the outputs of its radars, they would not be as capable as the OHP in detection of low-E targets. The thing is, we don’t know whether the 054A is fitted with an IADT equivalent or not. You, however, despite knowing full well that you don’t know, explicitly stated that the 054A was more capable in that regard, and proceeded to defend your claim.
How are they better? You have not proved conclusively that they are. You have only proved conclusively that you derive the wildest conclusions based on the flimsiest of evidences.
don’t you think you are getting too emotional here? I haven’t bothered to do anything other than explaining 054A to you. You are using bold, italic, calling me names. But anyhow, I think the part your have in Italic is a pretty big claim
But yes, you’ve been making claims about 054A having slower reaction time by simply assuming that 054A’s radar integration software is not up to par.
As for how are they better? well, what I’m saying is that SR-64 alone can have better reaction time (with it’s high power and longer radar horizon) against anti-ship missiles and track more of them than everything integrated together on OHP. And you can read below on my views regarding how many missile close in defense on 054A can handle.
Everybody can set requirements, meeting them is quite another. The OHP has been extensively upgraded.
When was last time OHP was upgraded for better air defense The issue is that 054A is pretty much tasked with defending AShM for much of PLAN fleet, so it’s simply has a much higher air defense requirement.? PLAN would not field it the way it is unless it meets the requirements.
Next time, do try to find out more before making claims about 054A superiority. The OHP always had mod 2 systems, which all along had the STIR. Meaning they’ve always had two anti-air engagement channels. Mod 1s were the versions without the STIR, and no mod 1s were installed on OHPs.
wow, you can engage two now, amazing.
Which version was he (whoever he is) referring to? SM-1 Block VIB is considered effective against sueprsonic sea skimmers.
baseline 7.
Close in engagement capability is more than the OHP. Don’t worry, nobody will deny you that. 😉
those alone can handle more concurrent targets than OHP. btw, you should search up what I wrote surrounding Type 730 CIWS and its concurrent engagement capabilities in SDF.
If they want better ASW, better littoral ASuW, respectable self defense, limited area air defense and proven performance, the OHP fares better.
you want to use OHP against a barrage of Brahmos and Klub? You are kidding me.
tphuangEvery single item in an aircraft is built to certificated specifications. To do so is very costly and new parts have to run to the same procedure before.
The GAF was surprised about the clever mix of parts from the 50s till 80s in their MiG-29s f.e. A fighter built in the 60s is no longer the same in the 80s for example. During its lifetime it has run through numerous maintenance issues in the shops, where older parts were replaced by newer ones. For some aircraft it is a big “book” filled with service issues and modifications till the ende of service-life. That work had to be done in sequence, because several parts are interacting. So it may be new for some people, replaceing a weaker part with a stronger part can have a negative effect f.e.. There is something like sonic stress a.s.o. When the Israeli were donated ex. USAF F-15s/F-16s, they were unable to bring that to the same Netz or Baaz standard for related cost reasons. The ex USAF F-16A/B examples were upgraded to Netz 2 only. All that in mind, none is surprised, that the Chinese had to run into new certification and test-work for their home-built parts related to the Flanker.
If you do not belief me, interview an aviation engineer about that issue.
They were using home built parts on J-11A before. The indigenization of J-11A continued with more and more home built parts. That’s the kind of testing they do at SAC. You can even see that from the cockpit photos, but they did not have to go to CFTE to specifically test like this. CFTE only hosts new variants.
tphuangHow many J-11B do fly with WS-10 engines right now?!
The GAF operated both engines (J-79) with F-104G at the same time.
When the overall dimensions are the same, there is no noticeable shift in cg at all.
The F-16 is interchangeable with heavier F110 f.e.
You are aware that the J-10 and J-11 are FBW at all!
every J-11B are using WS-10A, we don’t know how many J-11Bs are there.
As for interchangeable for heavier engines, obviously they have FBW, but you still need to test again with the new engines and such. And that’ why they’ve been doing J-11B and WS-10A.
tphuangCrobato ha speculato
man you should change your name from Crobato to Speculato, just kidding, Crobato be serious, Sukhoi is claiming something reasonable, of course i am open to the possibility there are facts i do not know or even facts that have not been mentioned but you have to acknowledge that the 9 of June 2007 press release does not mention any new deal with China with respect the J-11 deal niether a continuation of the license production of the remaining 90 Su-27Sk, therefore to my understanding such agreement that you mention has not happened at least for what concerns Sukhoi`s 9 of june 2007 production report
Crobato learn some italian ho speculato hai speculato ha speculato abbiamo speculato avete speculato hanno speculato, avevo speculato avevi speculato aveva speculato that is your favarorite verb
you still have not answered the most basic question. Why do they need to test it out at CFTE for a couple of years unless they are putting in new engines, made other modifications from the basic su-27sk (for example, we saw pictures of 12 hard points a while back), used an entire new set of flight control software + avionics?
tphuangOHP cannot compete with the 054A in terms of number of channels, but it may (and is likely to) be more capable in terms of detection and tracking of low altitude, heavily maneuvering targets in clutter. And in those cases, ability to detect early and maintain track matters just as much as number of FC channels.
The difference in concurrent engagement is huge. You can’t even compare the two.
how can it possibly be better in terms of detection and tracking low altitude and heavily maneuverable targets in clutter? As I said, with the power and the height of SR-64. It can accurate locate many stealthy anti-ship missiles traveling at mach 3. I know you would ask this question, so I will just answer now. They got plenty of drones with low RCS and high maneuverability to use for something like SR-64 to test. You might want to check up on Ba-7 if you have doubts. Even aside from drones, YJ-83 is a missile skimming at 3 to 5 m is terminally supersonic. SR-64 is specifically designed to track this type of targets and give command updates to HH-16 and pass info to Type 730 CIWS. And then HH-16 only needs to receive terminal guidance from the FCRs. And Type 730 CIWS has the 3 eyes + FCR to track similar type of targets. They all have high frequency -> so you get better resolution and sacrifice range. Comparing this to what I get on SPS-55:
https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/SensElec/RADAR/sps55.htm
That’s 16 RPM. Barely better than your average VSR. Certainly cannot get the 1 second refresh rate of SR-64.
Nothing against OHP, sea-skimming supersonic missiles just weren’t as prevalent back when it was developed and it’s main role is not AAW.
So something like the ability to detect and maintain track is now lame to someone who cannot quite substantiate their claim that the 054A is definitely better at detection and engagement of low altitude targets.
where did I say the ability to detect and maintain track is lame? That is putting words in mouth. You’ve been doing this through the entire discussion. Clearly, what I referred to lame is that you are using a factor that is a bit of an unknown to “proof” that 054A’s ability to detect/track is inferior. This is after calling me ignorant for not understanding my previous point and then bring up a bunch of other radar when I was clearly comparing the early detection/tracking capability of the two ships.
And what sort of integration does it carry out? There are different ways of integration, just as there are IADT integrates radar information differently from other radar integrators out there. There is also nothing to say that just because some land based system in China does radar integration, that means the 054A also has a similar system.
national network with a network of FCRs and surveillence radar joint together by fiber optic network. surveillence radar pass information to the FCRs. Which FCRs use to detect the targets around its area. If one goes down, the closest one picks up the target and then provide the guidance for the nearest missile to intercept. In fact, 052C’s AD is quoted by many as part of this system, that it extends the radar coverage several hundred NMs from the shoreline. The only thing we are not sure right now is what kind of data feed 052C and 054A get from AWACS and other aerial assets and other ships or not. Or to what extend they are integrated.
Probably to see that they simply work under the CDS.
Integrating the disparate systems under a CDS is quite different from integrating radar outputs.
No, this kind of integration has only been seen with 054A and 052C’s sensors + missiles. In 052C’s case, it’s a lot simpler since it was just the MFRs + HH-9. In 054A’s case, it brought in VSR and FCRs too. By the way, for something like 051C that had tombstone + older version of Sea Eagle + SR-64, they never bothered to do something like this. That’s why I never trusted in it’s low altitude air defense. They basically are putting a complete system on 891 for testing. And when that is ready, they will put it on the ship that’s fielding it as a system.
Exactly. So you cannot make the claim you initially did that the 054A is better than the OHP in tracking and engaging low altitude targets, because you don’t know.
you basically knew nothing about 054A, but you still managed to make claims everywhere. Also, I’m makin this claim, because as I explained before, the sensors on 054A are better at multiple engagements and low level tracking. Also, PLAN’s general requirement and the mission profile for 054A is aimed at a far great air defense capability vs today’s anti-ship missile threat than what OHP was designed for.
Each SM-1 can of course handle only one target. But the Mk 92 system can handle 2 air targets, CAS provides one, STIR provides another.
interesting, two illuminators with the upgrade.
Based on? Somehow the HH-16 of which little is known just is better. You don’t know how it is better, but it is better, because you want it so.
well, based on what our defense professional Galarhn said about SM-2 only achieving reliability against sea-skimmers with the recent Aegis versions and that SM-1 was never designed for engaging supersonic sea-skimmers. Whereas, HH-16 was designed to be improved from shtil-1, which does have proven anti-missile capability. In fact, I would say it’s developed to be Chinese equivalence of ESSM.
And then even after this, I haven’t got down to the close in air defense of 054A with 2 Type 730 CIWS and AK-176M. This is often the most overlooked part of 054A’s air defense.
Going back to the topic, it is by no means certain that the 054A is necessarily better than the OHP or the Type 23 as the platform of choice for Pakistan. OHP and T23 will be transferred at very low cost compared to the 054A, and they even provide better capabilities in some important areas like ASW and littoral ASuW. Even in AAW, while it looks from the number of FCRs that the 054A is a more capable platfrom, it is not really clear that it is indeed that much more capable than the OHP when it comes to stressing low altitude targets, where time to detect and track are factors just as critical as fire channels.
I guess that’s a debate on what PN needs. If they want better ASW and don’t mind an older hull, then they will go with OHP. If they want a newer hull with OTH ASuW capability + limited areas air defense, they’d go for 054A. But in this case, they will probably get both, since they are getting OHP for free. I was simply replying to clear ignorance and bias against 054A on the other thread.
pinko
judged from the fact that one of the sea eagle’s 2 face antenna is in C-band, sea eagle will be the main horse to tract the surface targets and provide midcourse guidance for HQ-16 to incept them.
unless HH-16 only needs data every 5 seconds, this isn’t going to happen. For example, Aster needs data uplink every second. Sea Eagle is pretty much like S1850M, except that it is less powerful and less sophisticated.
tphuangNothing special. You will find in Israeli F-16s home made radar, AAMs, Avionics, weaponary, structural work, stronger landing-gear, higher MTOW, GE or PW engines a.s.o.. Through the Lavi Israel got the expertise to built all parts related to that, when cost is no issue, but is to avoid misunderstandings. Despite all that the fuselage and related flight-system and several other key elements are still LM.
When the J-10 is indigenous in general, the J-11 is not so similar way, like the MKIs built in India, whatever is fitted, when the Tejas will be indeginous in general.
But that’s the point, everything on J-11B is made in China. It doesn’t use PW or GE engine anymore, it doesn’t use any Sukhoi components. And when J-11BS comes out, it will be as indigenous as J-7E is to China.
Not the weight is an issue, but the dimensions. The demand in durability is higher in the single engine use. The gearbox for two engines is not double in weight compared to single engine and s. o.. Which view you take, when a single engine becomes lighter, something is wrong with twin-use example.
Both are built by Saturn.
To give an idea about numerous weight data published about J79 and AL-31 series is no exception. Durability rises weight.
The J79-11 A was 1615 kg
The J79-MTU-1K was 1685 kg
The J79-IAI-J1E was 1699 kg
The J79-17 was 1750 kg
how can weight not be an issue? If an engine is heavier, you might have a different center of gravity, the stress on different part of plane will be different. Calculations will have to be modified to account for the new engine.
tphuangi agree with first part and here is a answer to the question of this thread
Perhapes Confusing Sweden with Switzerland:D
but what i said about European solution was a thing that happened before President Pervez Musharraf intervened and decided to go for Fc-20(PAF’s J-10)
PAF high officals because of thir tranning and close relationship etc wanted to go for EF-2000 (which was available before and after the F-16 deal )or JAS-39 (which is thought to became available after the F-16 deal)
But that is thing of past and i think this is not a right place to discuss it
no idea where your sources are, but it seemed to me that the plus-one fighter project was down to J-10, JAS-39 and F-16. In which J-10 won out, F-16 order was cut down. As for your link, don’t think that conclusively proves anything.
tphuangWhat makes you assume that the 054A has a radar integrator? just because it is newer? Or because you wish it to have one? Show us proof. And the OHP is able to handle 2 air targets simultaneously, not one.
You might want to find out what a radar integrator like IADT actually does, and what bearing that has on ship-self defense capability. The constant comparisons of radar vs radar shows a lack of understanding of the contributions of a radar integrator to ship self defense. And Pinko does not seem to understand how RPM affects data-update rate, as well as how IADT dramatically increases update rate as a result of integrating plots from almost every onboard radar.
so clearly, you can see that individually comparing the volume search radar, comparing the tracking radar + number of FCRs, OHP cannot possibly compete with 054A. So, you are down to this lame argument of China can’t combine it’s radar data. As I mentioned before, they already have something like that in their national AD network. If you ever checked their surveillance radar export brochures, you would see that they have developed a land based system that integrates everything together. It’s not that hard to assume they put it on naval AAW platforms. That’s in fact one of the biggest difference in quality between something like 051C and 052C.
As for what evidence I see of such a system on 054A. Most of this is seen on 891, you can see clearly where the test ship is testing out the combined effort of HH-16 + FCRs + the new Sampson like MFR + new variant of Sea Eagle LRR. To me, that’s clearly a naval AD system at work. Even before being deployed on any ship, they are bringing this set of sensors together to work with HH-16. If they are not also testing out the hardware+software that integrates the data from all the sensors, why would they do this? To make sure that the radar frequencies don’t cause problems? I don’t think they need to put them all on 891 just for this. Now, what you can argue is whether 054A’s radar integrator is as advanced as OHP or not, but without data of each, nobody can answer that for you. As for this OHP being able to handle 2 air targets, I read at least the SM-1 can only handle 1 due to the limited nature of MK-92. Unless you have some other sources that show it can handle 2 air targets, which I can’t seem to find online.
Prior to IADT installation and the MPU upgrade to the SPS-49, the FFGs required the SPS-55 and CAS. With both IADT and MPU, the ability to detect, form and maintain track of low flying, violently maneuvering targets in clutter has been dramatically increased.
still doesn’t address the real problem that SM-1 is just not that capable of intercepting sea-skimming missiles.
look, this is getting weak, clearly the only argument you can make right now is that you assumed that China can’t integrate it’s radars as well as on IADT OHPs. First, you jumped guns on my arguments before reading them and now the only argument you can use is this “well, since you can’t show me how well China can combine the radar info, that must mean it doesn’t work that here”.
Pinko, there is not a chance Sea Eagle can be a MFR.
tphuangIf they are already discussing it that means that China is ready so question is Will be is PN going for 054????
PN is looking more at new western Multirole Frigate from Germany/France/USA
To be honest I think that in the end P.Mushraf will have to get involved just like he did in J-10 deal where PAF was looking at European solution and was not heappy with Avionics& Radar etcThis deal of four new Frigate is independent of secondhand purchases
When Kanwa interviewed with Pakistani military in the March edition, it was mentionned that PN is contacting China regarding 054 series. But of course, since 054A hasn’t even entered PLAN, this kind of deal is not concluding anytime soon.
As for J-10 deal, they are just trying to get the best deal by inviting for European solution. Remember, there hasn’t been an export version of J-10. On top of that PAF is looking for a far more multirole radar than what J-10 is currently using. So, obviously they don’t have a radar that is exportable and PAF wants right now. But that will change, PAF just needs to give China the requirements. I’ve been saying all along, for all of this talk, JF-17’s second batch will be using Chinese avionics/radar and so will J-10 once it’s allowed to be exported.
tphuangSimply comparing the characteristics of the long range radar and using that as a determinant of how capable the platform is against low altitude targets betrays your ignorance. As I said, IADT combines the output from all the radars to form a composite track similar in fashion to an intra-ship CEC. What indication is there of an analogous system aboard the 054A? Combining multiple radar outputs to form a track ensures quicker track initiation and a more robust track than multiple radars operating independently.
Where did I say that? Point to one place where I said Long range radar is an indication of how capable the platform is against low altitude target. I compared the two long range radars to show that in surveillence/searching mode, 054A’s radar provides more information due to the fact that it’s using an electronically scanned 3D radar.
For low altitude targets, if you have ever read any of my posts on Chinese sensors, you would know that the key is SR-64. Whose role (as you can see by it’s position especially on the front mast of 052B/C) is to track supersonic sea-skimming missiles. That’s what the 60 RPM is for.
Lol, why do you assume that China is not capable of combining information from its sensors. Do you know how Chinese air defense work? How much redundancy is built into the land based air defense involving different types of surveillence and fire control radar? Why would you think 054A would have such a rough time at it? Remember, the hardware (computers) on 054A is far newer than stuff on OHP and Type 23. Nothing against those ships, that’s just how fast COTS technology has progressed.
I only questioned if it could formulate a response faster than the IADT equipped OHP.
why would it not be? SR-64 have sufficient refresh rate (1 hz), they are using LAN on the ship, they have modern computers and modern displays. The bigger problem in these ships is to train people to fully utilize the tools.
And then, VLS is generally going to have faster reaction time than a traditional launcher.
Check up all the FFG Vandalexs.
i’m not sure what you are referring to here, but bottom line is standard missile can only engage one anti-ship missile at once and has to illuminate that target the entire way and according to Galarhn on DT, even SM-2 did not have good performance against sea-skimmers until recent Aegis versions. Whereas compare to 054A, it has 4 FCRs only performing terminal illumination with a SAM designed with countering anti-ship missile in mind. And if you want to go through what HH-16 tests against, I can do that too.
And is China giving away 054As now? Or upgrading theie sonar suites for free?
China is continuously upgrading 054 series as we’ve seen recently on 891. export customers can only benefit from the upgrades they are making. Whereas USN, what kind of work are they going to do for PN to upgrade it, if OHP is not part of their future.
Don’t blame me, I’m just refering to sources much wiser than you and I.
But what I know about shtealht (and that isen’t much) is that its mostly down to the angles. Type 23 have like I said its right angles deleted which reduces its RCS. thats mostly evident in the weird shape of the front superstructure. For example the latest Alreigh Burkes and pr. 1154 Neustrashimyy is said to have similar features.
That’s what people say about La Fayette too.
tphuang[QUOTE=MiG-23MLD;1129032]You last comment is the foolish one,Sukhoi can not do anything, that is the most foolish one because number one the J-11 is not Chinese, not even with a WS-10 or Chinese built radar, it is a Su-27, the aircraft is Russian, it is Russian property as a design, this is when i can see you can not understand logic, China signed an agreement, that is a reality only built 105 because they did not want to pay for the rest 90 Su-27s, saying because the chinese build the airframe (when there is no proof they built the entire airframe by them selves) means they can built SU-27s, this means the Chinese are stealing, a license break, and believe me Russia has more than one way of pressing China, Russia simply can stop other projects, reducing Chinese and Russian economic links in fact Russia has more nuclear weapons so china can not bully them and enough chemical and biological weapons that China won`t be able to beat Russia, however these nations won`t go to war but simply they will break economic ties and that will be more serious than you think because the Russians still are wealthier than Chinese and many Chinese want to go to Russia and immigrate and the Chinese companies only have Russia and Israel as source of technology transfers for advacned weapons, however in reality Russai will be affected too so both nations have nothing to win by breaking economic relations or waging war against each other.
[/qoute]
wow, now, you are getting really desperate. I never mentionned anywhere that J-11B was a Chinese design, did I? But the upcoming J-11BS with more changes will be though. As for this stopping other projects, go ahead. It seems China is the one that is stopping military purchase talks with Russians right now. You got the IL-76 deal on us, what else do you have? Russia is not stupid enough to go nuclear against China over J-11B, so stop blabbering. As for this breaking economic relations hurting China, how? Russia is China’s 8th largest trading partner. While China is Russia’s 4th. You have a trading surplus on us. You think we are worried about you breaking economic relationship? The only ones that China fear are EU and USA.
Saying Sukhoi does not lose or can not do any thing is a foolish statement and equals to saying the Su-27 is a MiG-21, Russian can always press China by breaking other agreements, Sukhoi has not claimed any thing simply because China has not broken any license and that equals the J-11 have been paid any way is boring repeating the same why you do not do this, why we do not wait a few more months? wait believe me if China is building J-11Bs from non Russian kits it will be known soon specially if the Su-33 deal comes to fruition, personally the logic of Sukhoi can not do anything is foolish because in that case for Sukhoi is better not even deal with China since already is loosing money if that would be the case but it does not seem Sukhoi is unwilling to sell more Sukhois, in fact China bought more Sukhois directly from Russia than built in China.
you guys are already breaking on the IL-76 agreement. What more leverage do you have? If you don’t want to sell su-33, don’t sell it. It’s just a matter of time before China develops a naval variant of flanker or J-10. And since their carriers are not going to be ready for a while, it’s not that big of a problem. What, sukhoi is not going to sell us su-34, 35? We don’t want it anyway.
Again, you still have yet to answer my one question.
And you still have not fully explained your view point on how you think the situation is.
tphuangMan i will tell you my opinion in few points
[B]A)No Russian source i have read claims China builds unlicense sukhois specially since they have not signed a second agreement confirming the delivery of the remaining last 90 J-11s, China signed an agreement and can not build unlicense Sukhois specially since the J-11 is a Su-27 Sukhoi can demand money for each one build in China
if you say so. But J-11B are getting built. And newer designs, much further departures from su-27 are being developed too.
B)Tass has an article about the J-11B but you have to be a member to read it, so i have not read it but in one of their articles TASS claims, the experts consider the WS-10 still is not near to be put into series production and fitted in J-11s
interesting, considering that AVIC1 already mentionned numerous times on its website that WS-10A is in mass production. And J-10 is even using WS-10A now, that’s how much the production rate has been cranked up to.
C)China still buys AL-31s and a KANWA article claims the J-11B uses Al-31 even when these articles claim, Sukhoi does not know any thing much about the project
that was Kanwa’s analysis from last year. But it’s just an opinion.
D)Using WS-10s and re engine the J-11 as the J-11B does not mean it is a new airframe, the first prototypes Su-27UB and the Su-27IB were modified Su-27Bs that got grafted new fuselage parts, the F-14A+ later designated F-14B were modied F-14As, same applies for the MiG-23MLD built upon the Mig-23ML or the Dennel Cheetah built upon a Mirage III airframe
okay
E)If indeed China is building Su-27s from chinese kits non deliveried by Russia, Russian sources will reported sooner or later, Sukhoi will report it, Novosty, TASS, Rosoboronexport, INTERFAX etc etc … because the Russian sources also read foreign reports such as those of Kanwa so this can not be kept secret by Sukhoi to the Russian media and Russian people so, sooner or later they will report it, but so far, me and i mean me, i personally i have not been able to find one saying China has its own production line of J-11Bs
[/B]
sukhoi knows, they just can’t do anything about it. This is pretty evident. If they really force China to pay extra, they will just stop producing J-11B. J-10 offers far better cost/performance ratio anyhow.
Again, you haven’t answered my question and you just basically went through the articles you stated. All I’m asking you is to state clearly what your views are.
Sign In
