it really is a wonder to me why they bought wire guided torpedoes, then.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/weapon/test71.asp

International…. not internal ones.

No official details are given in PLAAF BVR exercise using PL-12 against foreign missiles.

well, the stats of SD-10 are pretty well known, you can use that as a basis to get an idea on PL-12. Actually, for the sake of the argument since FC-1 is most likely being equipped by other air forces, SD-10’s stats would have more weight.

I highly doubt MICA has the same ballistic range as R-77 or AIM-120.

Perhaps I misunderstand the missile technology concepts, but I am not sure what you are trying to say with ARH seeker range. So you are saying that newer ARH seekers like 9B-1103M with longer range is actually worse than the older seeker with short range? I do not get that at all. ARH seeker technology level has not reached the level where you have to worry about a fighter tries to launch an AAM with ARH turned on 100km away and therefore warned the enemy fighter too soon. If you really want the longer range ARH seeker to turn on at a shorter distance with less warning, just set a closer intercept point to enemy fighter with your INS and ARH will turn on later, so why is that a handicap? It’s the same principle, longer range could be used at either longer or shorter range, but shorter range could only be used at shorter range.

Also, this can never be said enough: Range is by no means the only standard to measure AAM effectiveness.

I agree PLA does not need to prove the PL-12 performance to the world by any international exercises. But as outside observers, that means we do not have verification or secondary indicator that would support estimations that it is a superior weapon. This is simply a matter of practicality: there isn’t enough official data on PL-12, PLAAF hasn’t had any BVR air combats, and there weren’t any exercises. Not much to go on there.

Surely target speed, engagement conditions all affect the real detection range. However I do not think it is ever in dispute that CAPTOR is a much better radar. For starter there is some context, namely the RCS of the target (a limited context but good for rough comparison nevertheless). The processor speed, power, and other specs of CAPTOR are all documented to be superior than other traditional radars. Of course we could say that is only manufacturer’s propaganda. But Eurofighter and Rafale are set to replace the older EU aircrafts. If people do not think RBE-2 is inferior or merely the equal of smaller RDY, why should the peer CAPTOR radar be that much inferior when CAPTOR is said to have greater detection range/more capable, and there are no evidence to show otherwise?

See this link for more info:
http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eurofighter/sensors.html

I would be extremely surprised if a low cost, lightweight fighter like FC-1 would have radar in the same league as Eurofighter.

plaaf hasn’t had any BVR combat exercises? hmm, I wonder where you heard that from.

consider this, China considers the export version SD-10 is superior to earlier versions of export R-77.

From zyun8288 @ CDF

New Naval PAR??

That’s just from another rumour thread on Chinese forum. Apparently, this thing was on one of the experiment ships. Although, I haven’t seen it from any of the photos I’ve seen. Frankly, they already have something that looks like Sampson that is actually paired up with HH-16 and the FCRs. So imo, just rubbish.

I must also point out that this figure is incorrect, despite the fact you often see it used.

Reference the earlier discussion in the thread regarding the top end speed.

Maximum speed is somewhere around Mach 1.6 or so, and as far as the FC-1 goes, I’ve seen a similar figure. I don’t know where Mach 1.8 came from.

Of course 1.6 or 1.8 it doesn’t really matter as the difference between the two is trivial and the length of time either of the two jets could sustain such speeds is fairly short.

As another poster pointed out, the max load of AAM’s is six, which is comparable with both the Mirage 2000 and the F-16 (both of which carry a maximum of six AAM’s).

Standard load with the recent improvements is four TC-2 BVR weapons and two short-range TC-1 AAM’s plus the internal 20-mm gun……not bad for a light fighter.

I don’t know why you’d laugh at it being compared to the FC-1 because I can assure the internal systems of the F-CK-1 are light years ahead of those on the FC-1 unless the latter is getting some brand-new set I’m not aware of…..maybe from IAI or something….

The F-CK-1 and JF-17 (or FC-1 whichever you’d rather call it) are actually fairly evenly matched.

this may shock you, but FC-1’s avionics and radar are better.

When the photos of Yuan first appeared it was reported that it had AIP. If I remember correctly, the chinese have experimented with the technology before but I can not remember the specifics. Something tells me that there was an accident at some point that resulted in a fire on a PLAN submarine that eas linked to an AIP test- however this might just be my memory playing tricks on me.:o

I’m not sure, I’d actually like to see the entire Jane article. But the original Chinese article just mentionned of a new engine that passed all of the tests and a type of Chinese ship has domestic propulsion now. The only reason that we think it’s AIP diesel engine is because the researcher mentionned in the story was known to be on that project and that it was lab 711 that developed the engine.

Don’t think this is a permanent thing, but rather just a trial thing being prepared for the next generation of SSKs.

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.

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.