tphuangthat whole assumption is wrong. what do u think about recent orders of AIM-9M and harpoons. how it is financed. or that whole pilot training or spares. it will take minimum of 10 years before JF-17 reaches the operational level of F-16. and if u do same the same with JF-17 the cost will be much more than F-16. there are other operators of F-16 like Turkish where pilots go for training. the whole infrastructure around the world of F-16 makes it cheaper plane. but that does not mean it will always be advanced.
How is it financed? using the military grants from the american government most likely. I’ve given you the price for JF-17, the per unit cost is clearly smaller. If you are so clear abou the additional costs, why don’t you do a breakdown? Why don’t you give a guestimate of the operation costs and maintenance cost and such? I would think both costs shouldn’t be that high due to the fact that JF-17 is a relatively simple design. The fact that PAF operates F-7 might help along too.
tphuangSo in the future WHEN and IF Salyut stops sending the -FN and more J-10 are actually powered by a “just certified” engine does it make sense to talk about this issue. Till then its just a Salyut AL-31FN powered a/c with a “just certified” engine that MIGHT be used. Just like the Indian LCA is GE F404-F2J3 or IN20 powered a/c with far from “just certified” engine.
did I say otherwise?
Who said that Kaveri was the future it is the present too (as much as WS10A is)…the point is that the present is far from here so its the future. Your arguments would be ABSOLUTELY RIGHT if China were inducting WS-10A engined J-10 not merely testing them. Your arguments would certainly be true if you had not ordered 100-250 AL-31FN. Thats way more than what the Indians want induct their fighter with. The IAF only wants 20 + 20 LCA with GE engines not 100 J-10 as some have seem to implied.
You are right there is no comparison…the Chinese are FAR MORE committed to the -FN than the Indians are to the IN20.
There is a huge difference here. Kaveri is not certified and WS-10A is. Is it China’s fault that J-10’s production rate and demand is probably 10 times that of LCA? China is getting a lot of AL-31FN now, because WS-10A production is not enough to satisfy the demand of both J-10 and J-11. How many time do I need to say this? Should China stop the production of J-10, because the local turbofan industry is not producing enough to meet the demand? No, as long as China puts in orders for J-10, CAC needs to find a source for the engines, whether it’s Russian or domestic engines. Let’s put it this way, you need to get 200 fighters by 2010, you’d rather have them all domestically produced, but you can only produce 50 domestically. So what do you do? You have to import. Does that mean the domestic fighters are inferior? No, it means it cannot satisfy the quantity requirement.
tphuangGoldenDragon, you shouldn’t really deliberately insult the Indians if you feel one of them happened to be obssessed. There are a lot of reasonable Indians on AFM.
China’ helicopter industry is not necessarily that far behind. It’s mainly that the production capacity is not the greatest and also there are not many helicopters in China. In fact, the recent EC-175 deal with Eurocopter should be a good indicator of how far China’s helicopter industry has advanced. If you add the recent Z-11 designs (which argentina is interested in), Z-9 designs (which has achieved quite a few exports) and Z-10 and CMH, you are potentially looking at quite a capable helicopter industry. Just that you know, the recent Z-8, Z-9 and Z-11 are all domestic designs, that’s why they are allowed to be exported.
There are many reasons J-8II has not achieved the kind of exports that J-7 has. If you want, I’d list them all, but I don’t want to bore you with the details.
As for J-10 and FC-1, the engine issue will be sorted out soon. I don’t for a minute think that China will have any export issues with them. If K-8, something that uses an engine that China can’t even get, can be exported as much as it does, I don’t see a problem with J-10 and FC-1. Are you going to belittle Sweden, just because Gripen uses American engine? Either way, WS-10 J-10s and WS-13 FC-1 will be available in time for exports.
tphuang3 MFDs are pretty standard these days, but not a lot of fighters have 3 humongous 8″x12″ MFDs, not even the FC-1’s sibling J-10.
I think J-10’s latest model is said to have better than that. Most of the cockpit we’ve seen of J-10 are the preproduction models. China’s technology has come a long way in the recent years.
tphuanghow is JF-17 cheaper than F-16? think a alittle harder u will get the point. and even F-16 is signed the same PAF will be saying looking for another high tech aircraft. it does not make a difference. and i havent seen any recent statement of medium tech from PAF.
dude, musharraf is in China and given quite a royal tour as you can imagine of CAC. The cockpit on JF-17 is probably by far the most digital he had ever seen. What is he suppose to say? JF-17 probably elevated from a barely 4th generation plane to a legitimate 4th generation plane with the recent changes. But that’s all it is. It is much cheaper than F-16. That’s a fact. China is selling this thing for 15 million each. Don’t give it too much undeserved expectations.
tphuangSAC’s capacity is rather pathetic. I would think WS-10A’s production rate can satisfy the demands of J-11s. My opinion is that all the new AL-31Fs are for upgrading the existing Russian built flankers, so that they will possibly have higher thrust and TVC.
Also, my view on WS-10A is that if it can’t beat AL-31FN in performance+reliability when it is ready for real mass production by like 2008, then J-10 should still order AL-31FNs. You want to make your flagship fighter as capable as possible.
tphuangGreat job for FC-1 04’s cockpit!!! Three MDFs of 8″x12″ color LCD! Only F16Block60 and JAS39 can match it.
all the modern western fighters have at least that. Even J-10 has a similar cockpit.
tphuangor it could be that Pakistan is penny pinching on its purchases.. the country has alot of R&D, brilliant engineers, and such.. but they don’t exactly have the freedom to purchase whatever they want.. if they did they would’ve bought M2Ks instead of buying F-7s and upgrading their MIII fleets. The Chinese avionics aren’t necessarily bad, but it is assumed to be much cheaper than their western equivelent.
well, it was the Pakistanis that said the Chinese radar passed their standards, but the Grifo S7 did not. That’s why I don’t think it was a financial decision.
To star49, musharraf simply said that 04 is better than anything in PAF’s inventory currently. You said that FC-1 is equal to block 50 according to what Musharraf said and I’m telling you that you are misinterpreting him.
tphuangthere arent many good single engine fighters with similar price tag available now. Gripen is short on range and payload . M2K is expensive. the only thing come close in price and capability is Su-30MK. and u cannot use Fighter aircrafts as bargaining chip with US unless the order is very huge. F-16 for PAF depends on other factors. from Mush long interview in the news. I will rate J-10 in EF class and FC-1 with advanced block 52 in terms of tech and agility. it seems china had some avionic break through.
he was saying these are comparable with any modern aircraft of the world available.
I think he was just being polite. He was simply saying that FC-1 is better than the block 15OCU that PAF has, which is not that surprising, since the block 15s don’t even have BVR capability.
its easier access to western technologies. The end result is that Pakistan can configure a Chinese aircraft that has the potential to be even superior to what their Chinese counterparts use. Some would even argue that such access from Pakistan was significantly vital to the FC-1 and J-10 programs as China.
I guess people could say that, but the recent trend seems to suggest that the Chinese avionics that are offered are better than the Western avionics offered. It’s true that Chinese avionics are not mature or advanced as Western avionics, but that does not mean the avionics that PAF has access to from the West is better than China. I continue to go back to Pakistan’s decision to equip the first 50 JF-17 with Chinese avionics/radar as the evidence for that.
tphuangI thought M is Multirole…arent they getting single seater multirole Su-27? SKM?
For the record:
Guys I donno why admins closed the Chinese export thread…it was a good thread and the discusison would have had a lot more merit if someone had posted some reviews of the Chinese exports from importer. I am not jealous or nationalistic as some drones make me out to be. Its just that when I saw the export thread I was hoping for more info and less photos about the exports. I am really sorry if I caused its premature demise (I really am).
congradulations, now if you can stop bringing it up in another Chinese thread, I would actually believe you.
As for the entire WS-10 issue, let’s get a few things clear:
1. It is certified and have been in production since last year.
2. It’s production rate is low due to its newness and the fact that China can’t crank out turbofan engines that fast.
3. There is simply not enough WS-10 production to be able to fill the order of J-10 and J-11.
4. J-10 will likely import AL-31FN for at least a couple of more years, because J-11 will get bulk of the orders for WS-10. So basically, nothing going to 10
5. The previous sk/ubk/mkk/J-11A will all need to have spares, that’s why these extra engines are imported.
6. For that article, read carefully:
“Rosoboronexport, a Russian arms dealer, has clinched a contract worth more than $500 million to supply to China 150 AL-31F jet engines manufactured by Moscow’s machine building production association Salyut.” these are the spare engines for existing flankers in pla using al-31f
“Beijing to deliver in the course of two years 100 AL-31FN engines for light J-10 fighters, also known as Super-10. The deal was worth $350 million”
This is the contract for the AL-31FNs
“Additionally, Salyut signed a contract in May with Beijing worth $100 million to supply in the course of three years spare parts for Su-27SK and Su-30MK2 fighter engines”
This is the “spare parts for the engines”. I’m guessing for overhaul and such.
7. As for the stuff about the extra 150 order of AL-31FN, we will see. I mean it looks like the current order of 100 will be used up by September, so a new batch of engine is needed for J-10s again this year. If the production rate on WS-10 isn’t high enough (which is the likely case), I don’t see what’s the problem with ordering another 150 AL-31FN.
8. Currently, WS-10A are mostly built for J-11B. Now, if WS-10A production increases to the point that it can supply both J-11B and J-10, we will likely see China limiting the AL-31 orders to just spare engines for the existing fighters that are using AL-31.
tphuangLadies, dont get yer panties in a bunch. Alls I am asking is could you pleej post links to non H&D users of Chinese made copies of Soviet a/c. I am sure if you guys think this topic deserves its own thread you should have no problem supporting it with TONS of links to Nigerians or Egyptians or Iranians singing praises of the Chinese a/c which have such superior build quality.
I never said anything about russian build quality….Indians saw that first hand with the Mig-29 (and thats why we pay attentions to contract details from then).
Oh for those who cough after inhaling too much fentanyl did you suddenly learn about 62 (it could happen after all any source of knowledge in China is strictly controlled by the dictatorship) how come you dont know about Sumdrong Chu Incident (dont bother googling for it your govt does not think you need to know about it). And you wanna know how many times we b|tch slappd your client state? That was/is a dictatorship ya know. So lets not get all political.
I found some unflattering links to Chinese made motorcycles (and I have exchanged horror stories about Indian and chinese cars with some of my chinese friends, yep I do have chinese friends…its the drones that I dont like). So please justify the existance of this thread by telling us how good the chinese planes are.
I don’t mind if you don’t like Chinese stuff or such. You are just getting annoying by using this dictatorship stuff almost as a way of saying you are superior to us. The purpose of this thread is simply talking about the Chinese exports, not about how good the Chinese planes are. If you wish to talk about that, start your own thread.
tphuangI think a couple of su-27s were lost due to damage by typhoon or something? Other than the so called 96 crash of prototype 2, I have no heard of any J-10 crashes.
tphuangWell “single party rule by communist” is just too long and inaccurate (repression of media and search engines etc) so commi dictatorship is apposite. Oh and on the Oracle forum one can never get too tired of anything.
The price tag sure is attractive (I do find some good buys at the local $ store too), but not everything is worth the money you paid for it. Thats why some independent verification would really add substance to this otherwise one sided discussion/recitation.
you know how annoying it is for you to always mention the dictatorship part. What does that have to do with anything? The Russians and Ukrainians are no longer under dictatorship theoretically speaking, yet their products’ reliability is not getting any better. The products’ quality have no relationship with the type of government you have. (it has more to do with the type of economy you have)
Why don’t you ask the Pakistanis, they seem to be fairly satisfied with F-7PG. Although one did crash recently, not sure what the cause is.
tphuangHow can you argue against the fact that the primary job of a dedicated AEW helo is tracking enemy combat aircraft (not to mention ASMs in the Ka-31 naval scenario)? It would be pretty pointless and counter-intuitive to test such a radar against helos only. Going by that logic the figures for the E-3 were obtained using airliners as RCS targets :rolleyes:
Not to mention that helos aren’t exactly the smallest radar targets around (rotors!), the challenge in detecting them stems more from their usual low-altitude operating environment than anything else.
hehehe, why don’t you grab the RCS of a EC-120. I’m sure it’s RCS is quite small.
Sure, AEW helo would be tracking a lot of enemy combat aircraft, but I’m saying that helicopters in general would face more helicopters than say a fighter. On the Russian fighter radar display, it refers to 5 m^2 as the fighter size. On that one uploaded photo, the helicopter radar simply referred to the target as 1.8 m^2. It didn’t say that is Russia’s definition of fighter size target.
Its common misconception. Theoreticaly, AESA can can lock they “individual radars” on multiple targets, but only at greatly reduced range. Lets make an example: say, AESA tracks 10 targets with, as you suggest, 10 “individual radars”. That will basicaly means what every “radar” emmits 1/10 of the normal host radar power, AND posses only 1/10 of the normal host radar reciving capability. Thats mean, 1/10 * 1/10 = 1/100 recived power. Which basicaly means what for 1 m2 target radar will recive 0.01 m2 equivalent return. The tracking range and stability will be GREATLY reduced in such mode – by 3 times at very least. Its again an example of mixing different maximal numbers from different modes. It just dont work that way in technical world.
Yeah I realize that. I never said that the true engagements would happen at the maximum range. If the range is reduced to 1/3 of what it was before 100^0.25 = 3.16. Then, a radar with the range of 200 KM for detection would still have lock on ranges of over 50 KM. That’s definitely sufficient range for most BVR battles.
tphuangA quick Xpost from BR,
Eh? Just because the carrier platform is a helicopter, does’nt make all the intended airborne targets as helicopters as well or “different”!There are lots of other brochures out there. To say that 5 sq.m etc is common is probably true but to claim that 5 sq.m is the standard Russian RCS and that the Russians can’t feild lower RCS targets to test on, is just false.
When helicopters are doing ranges and such, it will obviously use the possible size of other helicopters. When fighter radars are listing ranges, the obvious range will be against its possible opponents (other fighters). When fighter radar are listing a2g or a2s ranges, it will measure ranges against possible sizes of ships and tanks. The helicopter radars are facing off against different opponents than fighter radars, the opposing RCS number is obviously smaller. How can you argue against this? We are talking about fighter radar and you are listing a helicopter radar to prove your point?
As for multi-target engagement, the N011M can actually support multiple SARH engagements. Multiple active radar AAM engagements are possible even with mechanically scanned arrays, from improving on TWS info.
Basically, I said multiple engagements are better with AESA radar:
PESA has better multiple engagements capability than mechanically scanned radar. If two radar both claim to be able to concurrently engage 6 fighters, PESA one should do a better job due to the far superior scanning speed.
AESA on the other hand can even more effectively do multiple engagements, because it is essentially hundreds (or 2000 in the case of APG-77) individual radars. They can individually lock onto different fighters. Therefore, that’s why its more effective in engaging multiple target.
Sign In
