tphuangThat’s assuming a 25 year or more production run and not assuming that the plane won’t be replaced in the interim, and that’s also assuming an optimistic 48 plane a year production rate. That would be considered very ambitious by today’s standards for a modern fighter anywhere in the world.
1200 planes is based on the assumption that there is roughly the said amount of currently in service J-8s and J-7s of all variations that will need replacement in the future. That’s like total market size without assuming the possibility of downsizing. But that grab for the market space is also facing competition with the J-11B and even the FC-1 which can reduce the market slice even more.
The 400 number being estimated is on the other hand, based on historical trends. The number of J-8s of all types probably only ran up to just over 400. The last J-7E/G variant probably went just over 300. The total number of Flankers of all types have exceeded well over 300 and might reach only between 400 to 500 by the end of the decade. That’s for a line of aircraft being acquired since 1992.
imo, it all depends on how fast the 5th generation plane gets developed. If it can enters service by 2015 or 2020 or 2025 or 2030? Until then, you are likely to see around 50 to 100 J-10s a year, I guess you can do your own calculation
tphuangFrom China’s experience with R-73, I can tell you that it’s definitely not more advanced than ASRAAM, Python-5, AIM-9X and IRIS-T
tphuangtphaung, sorry to say this but you’re dreaming pal. Maybe when all versions have been produced we’d come to a number like that but thats far far away into the future and if you’re coming back from the future then I’d like to remind you that this is the year 2006, AD.
and that’s the number I’m talking about.
tphuang400 only? Much more than that… I can assure you~ 😉 😀
add a one in front of there 🙂
tphuangI have to say Mongolia. Unlikely they by themselves could stop an invasion from Russia or China should they chose to. They don’t have any ocean. They don’t border a major shipping route or have alot of illegal drug activities that warrant a patrol aircraft like Mexico. They aren’t as heavily involved in peace keeping as New Zealand either.
I second that.
Mexico is a logical one too, since US would do anything in its powers to stop the flood that is also known as the Mexican “immigrants”.
tphuangdo you really think China can just “copy” YF-23? I think this is just ridiculous. If F-22 developers know the RCS of F-22 from every angle, then I would assume that every bit of the plane has to be developed in a very specific way. It’s not something that you can copy using a photograph or even if you get a model of it. You need a real plane and do a bunch of measurements to get the original airframe specifications. And even then, you still don’t have all of the stealth coating technology of the Americans.
tphuanglooks like Ghana just bought 4 K-8s
As for L-15, it’s just had its maiden flight a couple of month back. Still hasn’t achieved a supersonic flight yet.
CY-1 – going nowhere
FTC-2000 – just a name used for export versions of HQ-9, which is progressing well
tphuangdesijatt from Asiafinest.com forum?
ROFL…..going to chinese military topic and claim India has better ships and training. yeah it was nice to see chinese forum members give you a beating and made fun of India.
😀
Excuse me for this post, but it doesn’t really matter as far as I’m concerned. Jatt was quite civil when we were debating. It was a nice debate. Each side think they won, but that’s to be expected. Besides, the India vs China stuff is getting way too old and completely outlawed on SDF. It will be nice if the Chinese and Indians on this forum don’t consistently provoke each other.
tphuangcopying yf-23? What the heck? You think you can just copy a stealth plane like that? If China could, it would. Believe me. You make reverse engineering sound too easy.
China will have to conduct its own set of testing to see which airframes have the least RCS. A lot of work for sure.
tphuangHow exactly?
Hard to tell.. Probably not today.. But you don’t really need to.. Fighters can be datalinked, you know. The long range AAM carrier does not have to see anything but it still can kill from a distance.
How does it lower heat signature? I hope this helps slightly
http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug1998/0898outfront.asp
Infrared. Heat-seeking missiles and Infrared Search-and-Track devices look for the hot exhaust of an airplane’s engines. Stealth aircraft reduce the heat of their exhaust by mixing it with cold ambient air and dissipating it over a wide, flat area. Special ceramics in the engine exhaust-similar to those used to protect the space shuttle from re-entry temperatures-can further reduce an airplane’s heat signature by capturing heat and converting it into a soft glow. These measures can be enough to prevent an IR missile or IRST device from locking on to a stealth airplane’s tail. Furthermore, the irregular paint job on the F-22 is more than just camouflage: It gives an imaging infrared missile a harder time finding a distinct “picture” of the airplane’s edges, further hampering lock-on.
I was talking about the F-22 can easily fly out of the battle zone and out of the sight of enemy fighters if it needs to.
To Harry,
I was agreeing that that a larger plane can be more maneuverable than a smaller plane if it is well designed. But rather, it’s harder to design a larger fighter to achieve a level of maneuverability than a smaller fighter. It’s definitely surprising to see Canberra achieving F-15 maneuverability, but if you look at its measurements http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/canberra.html, its wingspan is still less than that of a su-30, so it’s no where near the size of a A-380. I’m saying that as you get larger and larger, it’s just harder to make the plane maneuverable. This is physics. You can expect an elephant to be as maneuverable as a tiger.
tphuangso now u are questioning the ability of guiding 4 long range missiles when the same can be said with medium range missile.
SAMs have been tested in different scenarios. Americans, Russians have all run their tests, I think we’ve all heard about S-300, PAC-3, SM-2 and such. What kind of tests have been done with 4 KS-172?
the era in which they were developed with limited resources it does tell some thing.
well, this is the condition they are under.
I think u should tell this thing to RMAF and IAF. they have equal access to east and west so why they are not placing orders for IRIS-T/Asraam/Pythons?
IAF – it got Russian planes, so it uses Russian SRAAM
RMAF – uses Russian AAMs for Russian planes and American AAMs for American planes. What’s so hard to figure out?
when it was developed?
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00021009
Let’s see whether the 400 KM missile for S-400 gets put in service before this or not.
I think u should better read about Zalson-M. it uses same technology as BARS but with 250KG antenna vs 100KG. there is nothing preventing it from not using long range A2G.
but yes, Mig-31 is used for the role of air interception. The Russians obviously have planes that do A2G missions and Mig-31 isn’t one of them, so why would they promote its A2G capabilities?
because they easily transpotable. they are mostly effective against slow speed aircraft.
ESSM? Americans seem to have a lot of confidence in it again anti-ship missiles as well as different types of aircrafts.
so why do u think MIG-31 uses R-33/37 for shoting cruise missiles. after all they have very small rcs? bigger seeker has its own advantages.
Why would Russians or Indians or Chinese even use R-77 if R-27 has the bigger seeker?
again u are ignoring alot of things here. there AWACS/Ground based radars that plays part in situational awarness. and there has been new IRST installed for Algerian MIGs. so fighter radar is not the only factor involved. China does not even have MKI class fighter.
China was offered su-35 though, so it doesn’t mater that it doesn’t have a MKI class fighter. You do realize that F-22 lowers its heat signature too, right? So, it’s hard to say what OLS-31E’s range will be against a stealth fighter like F-22. Also as I said in the beginning, if you are going to bring in AWACS, ground based radars, you should also factor in EA-6B and EA-18G.
and how can u produce higher speed from there small engine and low fuel?
I’m saying that SRAAM can go at mach2.5 and be effective at that speed. You don’t need to go at mach6 to be effective. You just need to be faster than the plane. And also, you can’t continue at mach6 forever, you will run out of fuel eventually.
how u figure this out that it is a slow moving truck? bigger seeker/better prepositioning not last minute turnings.
That was an example to show that as long as your faster than the target, the more important factor is how well you turn rather than how fast you are.
so what if it is detected from long range. If a fighter pilot knows that some thing is coming after him from 300 to 400km at great speed he will be in two minds from the begining. either fight out the missile or abort plans and leave the area.
F-22 do a super cruise the other way and how long do you think Su-35 can lock on to F-22 if it goes the opposite way? Once it looses the lock, KS-172 will have to relie on inertia. And honestly, do you really think anything can detect F-22 from 300 KM out?
tphuangtphuang, the IAF does not have Python-4s. What was written was that there were negotiations and thats all. The Mirage-2000s can carry R-73Es and the Jaguars can carry R-60MKs.
Wrong. Its a trade-off between lift and drag (finesse), plus thrust. However, smaller aircraft are difficult to visually acquire -> Lose sight -> Lose fight.
Interesting.
As for the maneuverable part, yes there are a lot of factors involved. Not every smaller fighter will be more maneuverable than every larger fighter. Not every smaller car will be more maneuverable than every larger car. Not every smaller person will be more maneuverabel than every larger person. Generally speaking, it’s easier for a smaller plane/car to have certain level of maneuverability than a larger plane/car. As I said, can you imagine a plane the size of A-380 achieving the smae level of maneuverability as a F-16? Of course, when you are talking about su-27 vs F-16, the size difference is not as large. So a great design like su-27 is more maneuverable in certain conditions than F-16.
tphuangWhat Indian AF aircraft use Python-4?
Tell that to Su-27 pilots.. 😎
China must seek their own ways. Su-30MKKs/MK-2s are probably one of the last larger orders of foreign aircraft to PLA.
http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_231.shtml
http://www.defense-update.com/news/india-missiles.htm
apparently, it’s for jaguars and m2ks.
generally speaking, smaller you are, the more agile you are. Do you think something in the size of IL-76 can ever be as maneuverable as a F-16? Of course if the size difference isn’t huge, certain larger planes can be more maneuverable than smaller planes.
China kept on buying Russian planes until it reached a stage when the Russian ones aren’t better anymore. If su-35bm can actually get a good exchange ratio against F-22, China would definitely not hesistate getting it.
tphuangboth of aircraft can guide 4 missiles and flanker can carry 5. a group of aircraft will be more aircraft effective than static sams considering the range of flanker much quicker response to emergin situation.
Let’s see how many it actually guides in practice.
there alot of systems that Americans cant develop even if they want to. does my examples ring the bell.
your examples are R-73 and Brahmos, that’s not saying much.
and when did R-73 entered operational service? and if the other systems were so great India would have been buying them left and right instead of sticking with R-73 as there premier short range missile. and there is difference between a down graded export model to certain countries and actual thing.
lol, man this is just sad. If you are using Russian aircrafts, you kind of have to use Russians AAMs too, right? And besides, the Indians got a lot of python 4 too. R-73 may have been good when it came out, but not anymore.
they have also ignored long range sams and long range AAMs.
SM-3 has a range of 600 KM, I have no idea what you are talking about. And isn’t our entire argument about long range AAM is not that beneficial? So, why don’t you think of some other ones?
It is more than useful according to his statement. even when they upgrade flankers to SM standard they advertize there ground attack capabilities not BVR in air.
Well, Mig-31 is an interceptor, it doesn’t have multirole capability, so why would he advertize ground attack capabilities if it doesn’t have any? su-27sm got converted from air superiority to a multirole fighter, so you are obviously going to talk about the ground attack capabilities.
from there u get this idea that it can turn as well? have u seen the weights of SAMs missiles?
It’s just common sense, the smaller you are, the more agile you are. And why do you think they are always converting AAMs to SAMs? Especially with SRAAMs?
and find me any real example of medium range missile hitting at even 30KM with 9G?
hey, I’m just saying that if this super long ranged AAM can’t accomplish its task until within the range of R-77, you might as well just use R-77.
i have told bigger missiles have speed advantage give less reaction time to adversary and has more powerful seeker better resistance to jamming. and it is premature to put radar ranges at this point.
You can’t ignore the radar range. The idea behind of a stealth aircraft is that you can detect it until it’s close to you, so missiles like KS-172 would have no advantage over R-77. It is however more useful against AWACS and refuelers and such. And you seem to be intent on proofing that this thing gives an advantage against F-22. If this thing really is that important, China would’ve jumped at the opportunity to get su-35bm already.
And I have told you that speed advantage is not that important. There is a reason why SRAAM normally have a maximum speed of mach2.5 and yet that is enough. Think about it this way, you can imagine the fighter as a person, a SRAAM as a person on rollerblade and KS-172 as a slow turning truck. If the rollerblader and the truck both start 100 m away from the person, which one do you think will catch the person faster?
Yes, it’s size gives it advantage in terms of larger seeker and such, but it will also be detected on the RWR/MAW earlier.
tphuangFlanker/MIG-31 can also launch and guide multiple missiles and with much more advantageous position and energy. so whats the difference?
Can launch/guide as many. You can only carry so many long range AAMs.
how u came to this conclusion that F-15 and F-16 will also be carrying it?It is like saying that US should also produce German autos, French colognes, scandanavians cellular phones. each country in Europe has its own unique advantages. Missiles is one area in which Russia is far ahead than the rest of the world starting from R-73 and ending at Brahmos.
I’m saying that if it is advantageous, the Americans would develop such systems for their platforms too. Russia is not far ahead in missiles. Do you really think R-73 is better than AIM-9X or python 5 or IRIS-T? It didn’t go digital until 2004, PL-9C developer said that the ECM of R-73 is not great. As for supersonic AShM, it just seems to be an area that the West has ignored due to a different doctrine.
how is Ruaf commander not neutral.
here is statement from Commander in Chief that will further put holes in your theory.
hmm, you put holes in my theory by quoting another Russian dude. It just says Mig-31 is still useful, that’s all.
rcs is moot point in future wars as any thing flying will be detected if equal adversaries meet in aircombat. it is the speed, energy, powerful seeker and range of long range missiles that will offbalance the rival airforce situational awarness, logistics. KS-172 is 4 times wait of R-77 but it has more than 4 times range, more than twice the seeker range and much higher speed. and that comes very handy in tail chase engagement when enemy fighters returning to there airbase short of fuel and u release this monster behind them.
how does it matter that it can go at higher speed if it can’t turn as well? Okay, explain using the predator/prey model why higher speed is so important? That’s basically what it is, you have a predator (AAM) chasing a prey (fighter). you might be able to make up distance faster on a straight line, but if you can’t make the necessary maneuvers, the higher speed will just fly the missile further out of the area. You know what, let’s get out of the armchair QB situation. How about finding a real world example where a long ranged AAM like KS-172 managed to down a plane that can make 9G maneuvers from 100 KM or more out.
And again, since we were originally talking about F-22 vs su-35, explain again why KS-172 will be helpful against F-22 if su-35 can’t detect F-22 until F-22 is within the range of R-77? by that time, it would be more advantageous to fire the more agile R-77.
Sign In
