tphuangthe interview said they will get 10 JF-17 this year. however an insider of CAC said there was 12 planes on the production line.
http://china-pla.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
You can check the kanwa article, it’s actually answered on the first question with PAC. It said “We will have 8 JF-17s in 2007”. As for you insider, why don’t you tell us which amazing insider this is? I visit Chinese forums often enough to know all of them by now. And why does having 12 planes on production lines mean they will all get delivered to Pakistan?
tphuanglol, i am sure the same Chinese forums you never fail to condemn for their speculations and made up articles.
don’t get the joke I guess?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31153-2002Aug17?language=printer
“The U.S. intelligence community predicts that a dozen to two dozen countries will have land-attack cruise missiles by 2015. But the most advanced capabilities evident in the Tomahawk — such as radar-evading features, ramjet propulsion and in-flight targeting — still appear far out of reach of most potential competitors.
“
when did Barbur become Tomahawk?
tphuangeveryone’s so certain there are exactly 8 planes? are they woking in CAC?
when new upgrade items like digital fbw and new engine with digital fuel management are available why wouldn’t PAF acquire more JF-17. J-10 means another huge amount investment on facilities of training and logistics must be done.
No, but they interviewed PAC and that’s what they said.
They’ve already made up their mind to buy J-10s, so it’s going to be another huge investment.
tphuangAs Star says where is Kanwa getting the information that 20 of these have been fired?. Let alone got 15 hits out of 20?. Is the article specific on the version of Klub missile?. Essentially the old problem was regarding the dart seperation sequence whereby environmental factors could effect the release such that the dart would lose stability and tumble. Possibly this could still be the same problem.
I’m not sure, KDR does have some connections with Russian weapon manufacturers and frequently do interviews with them. Although, it did not say what the test conditions were. The hit rate listed for sunburn on sinodefense is pretty low too.
Its terminal phase altitude is less important than its cruise phase altitude for all the reasons detailed to Austin above. The point is in terminal phase its a very small radar target thats moving very quickly. Is it invulnerable…..when faced by an alerted target vessel….no of course not and it is as vulnerable to RF softkill as the two types you mentioned. If what you are saying Kanwa reports is right and the weapon has seeker problems it may be that it is more vulnerable to softkill than most…the chances of finding that out, definitively, are negligable.
The reason for the high degree of praise for the weapon, in my eyes, is that it does at least illustrate an attempt to defeat conventional countermeasures by the design team. Again as detailed to Austin the weapon has enormous potential to catch a target warship at a low readiness state and not allow it the time to get to action stations before impact. Conventional active radar skimmers subsonic or supersonic just cant do that against a reasonably competent target.
do we know what it’s cruise altitude is compare to other sea-skimming missiles?
tphuangyou probably need to reread my post –
Tphaung>>> any terrain hugging cruise missile is “radar evading”. Further, its got some kind of RAM coating.
and by giving one example that has both and is not regarded as a radar evading missile, I’m challenging your point.
I never claimed it was better than any other cruise missile, and neither am I an expert in what cruise missile does what.
If you don’t like a post, either argue against it or pass over it.
Oh, and if you have “never heard about” something next time, I’d try searching for the terms on google.
While I usually skip over your posts, here I spent 20 seconds to help you do your google search for you to see if the term radar evading cruise missiles come up anywhere:
McKnight said that the radar-evading missile “is by no means a ‘stealth’ cruise missile,” just an improved model that “looks very similar to its predecessor.”
http://www.connexions.org/CxDigest/Docs/CX4906-DGTBRALL.htmI’m sure you’ll find the term elsewhere if you took the time to google it up. Thats all that I can really teach you for now, au revoir. 🙂
lol, google is where you get all you knowledge from, huh? I’m starting to wonder what you picked up from this thing called school.
It’s absolutely amusing that you use something mentionned by one of the stupid politicians from my country as the definition of radar evading missile.
Let’s show the entire paragraph here.
“Also sharing the prize was Defense Minister Bill McKnight, who justified the government’s decision to let the U.S. test its advanced stealth cruise missile in Canada. McKnight said that the radar-evading missile “is by no means a ‘stealth’ cruise missile,” just an improved model that “looks very similar to its predecessor.””
I don’t think your English is very good if you can’t understand this.
– understand what that means?
– Canada let US test a stealth cruise missile on its territory.
– Mcknight commented on that missile (which was referred to as radar-evading missile in the second sentence)
– he got laughed because he said that the tested missile wasn’t a stealth missile, but rather an improved model of a previous missile.
Now, that wasn’t so hard was it?
tphuangHey Jonesy,
I think you are overrating Klub a little bit here. Compared to Harpoon and Exocet, it’s still a much larger target. We don’t know how low this thing can fly, I doubt it can achieve the 3-5 m flying altitude in the terminal stage. On top of that, it’s guidance is probably much inferior. I remember reading a kanwa article a while back that it only hit 15 out of 20 targets. Not exactly a great hit ratio.
tphuangTphaung>>> any terrain hugging cruise missile is “radar evading”. Further, its got some kind of RAM coating.
I have a suspicion that just like Europe has gone into joint development of technology, the Chinese et al have gone for a similar kind of joint technology development agreement. Last I heard, babur was being given to Turkey. I sincerely hope we can get Turkey on board, we’ll be unstoppable with Turkey’s R&D facilities further augmenting our technology base. (By our I mean some vague alliance of China et al). Too bad to you Europeans, your prejudices are not paying off any more, hopefully we can capitalize on that.
other than the supersonic ramjet ones, which cruise missile doesn’t fly low these days? And having some kind of RAM coating makes it radar evading? I’ve never heard of anyone call the much more advanced DH-10 radar evading.
Please don’t continue with this “Too bad to you Europeans, your prejudices are not paying off any more”.
tphuangboth 101 and 102 are 07 prototype. and if we see the 07 numbers on 103, 104… then it would be clear this is the production version. it’s said PAF is gonna receive 8~12 planes within this year. before there was rumor these two planes are 04 and 06 prototypes. but according to insider these two prototypes are still in chengdu. btw this insider also leaked that PAF wants to purchase more JF-17.
well, everyone has mentionned 8, I don’t know where 12 came from. But it’s been known for quite a while that PAF has a requirement for far more than 150. The question to me is whether they actually want to buy 50-100 more JF-17s when they can substitute that with say J-10s.
Newer pics shows carrying LGB on inner most and not just drop tanks
Standard AAM load is 4 , may be 6 after 04 chnages.
probably want to stick with drop tanks if you want any kind of combat radius or the ability to perform 3 hr CAP.
tphuangIt was very nice of the Chinese to give this to pakistan.:diablo:
They call it the Hongniaostan on Chinese forums, lol
tphuangso that means 101 is prototype 6?
tphuangApparently the range has gone up to 700 km plus now.
Pakistan tests nuke-capable, radar-evading cruise missile
First tested in 2005, it has 700-kilometre range
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan yesterday successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable cruise missile that can also avoid radar detection, the military said.
I wonder how Barbur suddenly became a radar evading cruise missile.
tphuangYes, of course, and also that the Chinese are morons because they are purchasing such weapons without even testing to see if the claims for their performance are true…
well, they had to. That was pretty much the only option for the kilos. And outside of that, they haven’t purchased any “sizzler”
tphuangimageshack server sucks, gotta edit it. btw fc-1 doesn’t use 1553b, but two MI-STD-1760 buses.
I suggest you go and check up the difference between the two. If you still don’t know the difference, you should take a hardware networking class.
tphuangIt would be nice to see some specs on the avionics suite?:confused:
Let’s see how well I can answer this question.
it uses 3 MFDs + 1 HUD, actually quite a modern looking cockpit. According to Chinese, it provides very good situation awareness and MMI, but then again, what do they have to compare it to? It uses two mission computers and 2 main 1553B databus. As for EW suite, it has your typical RWR with a set of stored signals (probably China’s experience with R-77 seeker helps PAF the most here), 3 MAWs providing 360 degree coverage, ECM that prioritizes threats and concentrates jamming on the most dangerous one, and a CFD system that can use the data from RWR and MAW to calculate the most threatening incoming missile and fire at that one. It does have support for FLIR/IRST, but it’s not built in.
As for radar, the original competition is between lab 607 and lab 14. Although the first two delivered to JF-17 are both using lab 607 radar. Later on, PAF will probably open up the competition to Western companies.
tphuangStill doesn’t say much if you don’t know how much fuel was aboard. I’ve seen a few REAL short MiG-29 takeoffs, but with only enough fuel aboard for a quick return and landing.
a standard J-10 A2A config is either 1 external fuel tank + 4 PL-12 + 2 PL-8 or 3 external fuel tank + 2 PL-12 + 2 PL-8. J-10’s internal fuel capacity is relatively low. So, it really depends which configuration it uses.
People saw one billion things. Take-off performance is determined by thrust/weight, maximum lift in configuration and wing loading. In neither discipline the J-10 outmperforms an F-16A.
I think Crobato addressed this issue already. Specifically, I honestly don’t see how J-10 can have a higher wing loading than F-16’s 400+ kg/m^2
Sign In
