tphuangAnybody who says the Type 730’s performance is comparable to the Goalkeeper because they are similar has no idea what they’re talking about. There is a significant difference in their configuration, with the Goalkeeper having the search radar and the tracking radar on mount, while the Type 730 has its search radar, the Type 364, off mount. With the Goalkeeper’s sensors co-located, track handover time is faster, and system reaction time is 5.5s. The land based version of the Type 730 system, the LD2000 on the other hand, has a reaction time of 9.8s. The wiki page is slightly off – the engagement doesn’t necessarily ends with a kill at 300m as the sentence implies. 300m is just where the Goalkeeper has the highest probability of kill against a Mach 2 missile. I have no idea if the Type 730 has actually been tested against supersonic missiles, but claims that the Type 730 is effective just because the Goalkeeper is, sounds like what a fanboy would produce and should be regarded as suspect until firm evidence comes about.
another day, and you spend more time bashing 054A. You see with most people, they can assume that if China is developing something based on another system, that would mean comparable performance. By when this guy starts talking, if China is developing a system based on a foreign system, that means the Chinese version must be terrible. I remember from the past times that it wasted day of my life arguing with you and that was just stupid of me. Since I have a 60 hours a week job, I will just put one post on this and let you have as many last words as you want.
Even the HQ-16 has successfully tested against multiple missiles and supersonic missiles, yet the CIWS can’t do it.
First of all, LD-2000 is not the land based version of type 730. It’s a downgraded export version that does not reflect type 730’s performance. I don’t know where you got the system reaction time of 9.8 s from.
But I was just looking at some cheap export AD system they had:
FL-2000v2 has a reaction time of 5-8s
FM-90N has a reaction time of 6.5s
btw, a lot of stuff posted on Type 730 sensors/reaction time are based on sinodefence post on TR-47. The only problem is that sinodefence got the specs of TR-47 wrong and TR-47 isn’t even the designation of the FCR on Type 730 (I got pictures from the 2008 Zhuhai air show to prove that). So, if you are basing your reaction time of Type 730 on some internet warrior’s estimation of LD-2000, there are some serious issues.
PLAN had the choice of putting search radar on Type 730 too, but it didn’t. They made the design choice of just putting tracking/fire control radar + EO-Tracker on Type 730. These systems can get additional search radar info as part of being hooked up to the combat system, but it can also operate stand-alone using the EO-tracker and tracking radar. It appears to be PLAN’s view that with modern fiber optic cables and processors, the added advantage of combat system combining plot/tracking data from different shipborne search/tracking radar, low-altitude search radar, EO-trackers, IRST/LR sensors and fire control radar unit is greater than just relying on a single unit’s search radar. A CIWS’s search radar will never get anywhere near the power and fied of view of all other shipborne sensors combined.
tphuangThat is not true, Russia and China had an agreement based upon 200 Su-27s with Russian components, the Chinese cancelled that agreement by not purchasing any more Russian components for the J-11B and that violated the agreement.
Kanwa said based on an interview with sukhoi that the Russians are still sending the components and China is accepting them. So, nothing is really cancelled. This is from either April or March edition of it this year.
They already paid the money for the rights to produce 200 flankers, whether or not they decide to use those components, that’s not up to Russia. The problem is that China is not telling Russia anything about what it’s producing exactly and how many it is producing. But let’s just say that the Russians are making a lot of noise, but the story behind it is more complex than it’s shown.
Now the Russians are not buying the chinese intentions of buying 2 or 3 Su-33s, even despite it is an aircraft that will be replaced by the MiG-35 and later navalized T-50s in 2017, they won`t sell any Su-33 if it is not at least a a few dozens.
China doesn’t need it. It would like have it to get the naval pilots start training asap, but if it doesn’t get it. It will just wait a couple of more years. It’s not preferred, but you can’t allow another country to control your operational sovereignty.
In what has affected China simple, the T-50 won`t fly at least in a few years in the Chinese colors if they continue with such practises, this means China will need to design their own stealth fighter by their own, it means more time to build it and in the meantime India and Russia will field T-50s, Su-35BMs, Su-34s and Su-30MKIs which will be superior to any J-10, JH-7s or J-11B.
China does not have any desire to join the Russian 5th gen project, that’s why it didn’t join. The reason is that it believes that it can develop its own plane even if it comes a few years later. And also, it wants the new plane to be developed to its requirements rather than Russian requirements.
The relation won`t be affected in many ways but some weapons sales will be.
Who has been the winner of the J-11B controversy between Russia and China? well INDIA since it has gotten the T-50 technology that China could had and the Su-30MKI which are vastly superior to the J-11B.
how is Su-30MKI superior to J-11B?
J-11B is equipped with higher thrusted engines, it’s lighter (so better T/W ratio).
J-11B can make use of combination Chinese + Russian AAMs, PGMs and AShMs. Whereas Su-30MKI is currently configured to just use Russian ones.
J-11B has a more advanced cockpit, uses holographic HUD, IRST/LR that’s improved upon the one for export version of Su-35, UV band MAWs, fiber optic cable for data transmission, more recently developed mission computer.
What people normally use as support for mki over j-11B are TVC engine and Bars. Well, you can either have 2D TVC or better T/W ratio. As for Bars, it has better multi-engagement capability due to electronic scan but in terms of detection range and such, it’s not better than what’s on J-11B.
tphuangseriously? Another thread like this?
There is nothing over about Russian Chinese honey moon. If the question is whether the military sales are closed to finished. The answer is yes, because China can produce all of its own stuff now. But the overall relationship is so much greater than just military sales.
As I said before, China is not looking to sell J-11B. There is no evidence anywhere that is the case. China paid the full price for the license production and ToT for 200 flankers back in 1996. So, it is licensed to build 200 flankers, which it hasn’t reached yet. And it won’t hit that target for several years given its current production rate. Should China pay royalty for each J-11 it cranks out past the first 200, yes. But that’s up to the two sides to negotiate.
I am kinda doubtful about navalized J-11. Because after building many Su-27 knock-off-J-11s and acquired T-10K (Su-33 prototype from Ukraine) China still can’t produce it.
They asked Russia for Su-33 and wanted to buy 1-2 first for “evaluation” but they have been rejected so far
The naval flanker program is very far along actually. There is nothing wrong with asking for a couple of more samples to get more ideas. If SAC couldn’t have delivered a naval version of flanker, they would’ve chosen naval J-10 instead.
tphuangOther than sinodefence, there is NO other source, and I don’t understand nor follow Chinese internet. That’s
all we’ve got. Why don’t you have it changed then (if what you claim is true) ?It received it’s certification on 3 March 2005 and was “revealed to the public a year later” according to an unreferenced source in wikipedia (presumably written by someone from Chinese internet). So, the 2006 “revelation” was not IoC as sinodefence says, but March 2005 it sure was. That’s still 7 years from debut flight.
huitong’s site is far more accurate
http://cnair.top81.cn/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
although, even on sinodefence, I don’t see where it says 2006 was the ioc date. I see this.
The J-10 was first flown on 22 March 1998, with six prototypes produced for flight tests. Six production examples in the single-seat fighter variant were delivered to the PLAAF Flight Test & Training Base / 13th Test Regiment at Cangzhou Airbase for operational test and evaluation in March 2003. The aircraft was certified for design finalisation in early 2004. The first operational J-10 fighter unit was activated in the PLAAF 44th Air Division / 132nd Fighter Regiment based at Luliang Airbase in the southern Yuannan Province in July 2004. The two-seater J-10S first flew in December 2003 and was certified in 2005.
that’s pretty much matches what I’m saying of certification in 2004.
tphuangWell, sinodefence mentions it was an IoC. Now, in cognizance of your claim that “the Chinese system is different from the west”, the only conclusion is that the Air Force grants the IoC certificate (unlike the manufacturer granting the IoC, as in India and the west).
yeah, but when did sinodefence become an official source? I’m saying this as a super moderator at its forum.
but yeah, by 2006, J-10 already had 2 full regiments of 28 planes + 10+ planes with FTTC in service. I don’t see how you can say it’s not fully in service. J-10 had it’s initial certification and conversion of first J-10 regiment in 2004.
tphuangvikasrehman, the original article is from earthtimes (the poster on stratpage has copied it from there and the earthtimes url). It clearly mentions that the first two are prototypes. I never disputed that PT-04 to PT-06 are DSI + lerx units (you can check a host of references of this in wikipedia). These 3 were delivered to Pak and “inducted” out of the total 8 LSP-like units.
Can you just re-check the AFM issue that you referred to and see whether it says something like, “A PT-04 taxiing in China (photo taken 2005)” ?
J-10 received IoC in November 2006 (OK not early 2007 as I said) as per Chinese State media. (Reference from Sinodefence.com.) F-16 got it’s IoC in 1979. F-16D in 1991. Source.
The Chinese certification system is different from the west. By 2006 when it was revealed, it was equivalent to a Western FOC. It already had 2 operating regiments. It received IOC in 2004 when the first operating regiment was delivered.
tphuangwell you don’t see a lot of countries clamoring to buy the AK-176 which leads me to believe the qualitative differences between the OTO 76 and the AK-176 are significant , everyone on this site generally agrees the more space for support craft (of all types, heliocpoters, UAS, small boats/rhibs) the better. for the Brahmos i mainly like the fact it is kept in a VLS system.
OTO vs AK-176M is an interesting scenario, because China actually brought in OTO 76mm for trials before the embargo (back then, the projectiles were not as accurate as now). And when compared to AK-176M, they found the AK-176M to have better muzzle velocity and greater firing rate. The problem with AK-176M is that it’s heavier than OTO 76 mm, doesn’t have the same accuracy of OTO 76 mm and also sensors are not as good. Also OTO 76mm has better traversal and elevation rates which are important for handling targets from different directions.
If you look at the Chinese version of the 76 MM, it actually uses a different hull that shows reduced radar signature and also is controlled by different combat system and FCR. I don’t think the weight issue can be addressed, but they can certainly make the projectiles better (whether they have done so or not is quite possibly a cost issue). The sensors are certainly more modenr and integrated. And it’s true that OTO does have the best single shot accuracy, but how does its accuracy compare to the Chinese 76 mm after firing 60-90 shots against multiple sea-skimmers is another issue.
You can always improve the accuracy of the rounds, but the physical properties of the gun is a little harder to do.
All that being said visually i like the Chinese one better and it looks like they keep cleaner looking decks then the Indians currently do.
I also prefer the Indian’s SSDS capability which is a mix of Barak Point defense missiles and rapid fire gun systems.
different philosophies here. Some prefer missile based CIWS like Barak and RAM. Some prefer gun based CIWS like MK-110, Type 730 and goalkeeper. Some prefer missile + gun based CIWS like Kashtan.
Shivalik seem to go for a combination of missile + gun setup similar to what the Koreans did on KDX-2. It looks like Chinese are going strictly with gun based CIWS. I’ve spent a lot of times before translating Chinese commentaries on why Type 730 was chosen. In laymen’s terms, they believe it can handle concurrent, multi-axis supersonic attacks (you can look up Goalkeeper’s test results to see this). A lot of it is dependent on the sensors + combat system fo this ship. I did a little comparison between what sensors are on each ships and where they put them. Anyone who wants to start comparing the ships should start looking at there. It’s kind of interesting that Shivalik chose to put the Orekh FCRs way up on the masts, whereas 054A have them much lower.
tphuangthe Brahmos missiles cells, the two helicopter spots, and the Oto Melera.
Is this all you can come up with? All of the above points can easily be argued against.
not many realise that going from 22-24 knots to 27 is a big deal. The power required increases exponentially with speed. 3200 ton Formidable class does 27 knots on 4× MTU 20V 8000 M90, rated at 8,200 kW (11,000 shp) each.
There is nothing wrong with 054A’s max speed being 20-24 knots, which is good enough for most patrol frigates. It has nothing to do with China’s ability to make fast frigates. As I have said before it’s just about your requirement and the role you have planned for a particular asset.P17’s LM2500 gas turbines are 33,600shp (25mw) each. Thats 50mw as against about 20mw for 054A.
Except that what you are saying is based on your personal bias, not real facts.
27 knots is what the Chinese news reported. You think you know more than them? Also, they are using improved domestic assembly of SEMT Pielstick engine that generates more than 5.7 MW.
tphuangWarships are custom built to individual specifications. Its about how well they fulfill their requirement. Having said that if you still want to compare then P17 is definetely a superior platform. Choice of armament is a matter of what has been standardized in a navy and it changes with time.
No way 054a can do 30-32 knots. There are a number comparisons that can be done here. Many frigates do 20-24 knots and 054A is one of them. I find it funny that its wiki page reads “30 kn estimated”. Often such estimates are a reflection of what people want instead of evidence based analysis.
I believe the top speed of 054A is 27 knots. If 054A’s max speed is 20-24 knots, it not have been allowed to join service.
btw, to add to Wanshan’s part on 054A propulsion, the recent 054A are using a domestic variant that has improved thrust rating. Compared to La Fayette’s top speed, 27 knots really is pretty reasonable.
In what ways do you think Shivalik is better than 054A?
tphuangthe ususal suspects, 8 battalions acros from Taiwan. The remaining are probably at Beijing, Shanghai, tri-gorges dam or pearl river delta.
tphuangIf by “learn from it, build it and furthur enhance,” you mean tear-apart, copy, violate IP rights, steal classified technology, and turn around and sell cheap copies, then sure- that’s exactly why there is hate against them. Just ask Russia about the Su-27SK’s they sold the Chinese. What they are doing is blatantly illegal, and extremely unethical.
Of course they don’t want Pakistan to get their equipment- because next thing you know, they’ll turn around and give it to China and China will be using MICA and Thales RDY technology in their missiles and radars for which they did not acquire a license or production rights. Either that or they will use it to figure out how to jam or disable technologies on the Taiwanese Mirage-2000’s. And it could potentially give them an extra edge over potential competitors (military and industrial) in the west. It doesn’t make sense to turn technology over to a potential industrial or military competitor.
That would be like Toyota licensing one of their vehicles to Hyundai, then having Hyundai turning around and giving the design to Ford without authorization, who proceeds to make and sell a copy of the design to compete against Toyota. In the west- you pay massive fines for this, and jail time is certainly possible too. Except this time, there is national security at stake. Thales, AdA, MBDA, etc… have spent billions developing these technologies and they give the AdA and other users a military advantage over adversaries. To risk leaking the technology to an adversary (such as China) could potentially allow them to circumvent this military advantage or to make copies that would compete against French arms in the international market.
China did not copy copy or steal with respect to su-27. It’s called ToT and licensed production if you actually check the original deal. But hey, they seemed to have done a good job at propoganda so everyone believes it now.
with respect to JF-17, it is what it is. I think the main issue is that Pakistan’s financial situation is not sound and France is not willing to do its avionics + weapons package cheaply
tphuangthere is only so much you can do given a platform. And honestly, Mig-29 is behind F-35, Rafale, Super hornets and flankers. No matter how much people want to praise it, it will be the worst naval fighter in the coming decade if we discount harriers.
tphuangIf India raises a few regiments of Brahmos for use as heavy artillery, would that be the first time this is done ?
What are the strategic aspects of having multiple regiments of super sonic cruise missiles ? w.r.t Pak & China.
Suddenly any major target (formations, temp HQ, ammunition dumps etc) is within range of an unstoppable pinpoint strike without prior warning. And this can be repeated many times.
Not sure how many india can afford, but I’d like to see a oversupply of Bhramos in the inventory.
dude, check the range of Brahmos. Unless you are interested in hitting Buddhist temples, there really isn’t a lot of point using Brahmos against China at the moment.
tphuangThere is only so much that China is willing to offer for export. In the case of J-10, it’s really hard to say, but I think J-10B is more likely to be the offer. But of course, PLAAF’s version and PAF version will be different since they have idfferent requirements.
Regarding avionics on future blocks of JF-17, I’m pretty sure they will be using Chinese ones. Of course, the Pakistanis like to boast about their Western options, but when the time really comes, China will show them something that fits PAF’s requirements.
tphuangMr President. Its not that I don’t think the FTC-2000 won’t be capable of doing that. I think its not the most optimal solution.
Think about it in this way, the FC-1 is capable of doing air to air fighting, but if you had a choice between that and the J-10, you’d most likely prefer the J-10 because its a more advance design.
The FTC-2000, no matter how you dress it up, is a J-7 derivative, still using mechanical systems, and still limited by an airframe conceived decades ago. Unlike the Yak-130, and L-15 which were designed from the ground up to mimic the flight characteristics of newer generation aircraft and are much more advance.
however as to your first question on what Indonesia is looking for.. its a replacement for their single seat Hawk and CAS oriented OV-10s.. in which case, it doesn’t seem like LIFT may be in their sights all together?
on paper, L-15 is a much better option, but it is not ready yet. If you look at K-8 as an example, PLAAF would not order L-15 in large quantity until the engine situation gets resolved. In the mean time, JJ-9 is more than sufficient for anything they need.
so if the JL-8 is an IJT in the PLAAF and trains pupil pilots to go on to the JJ-9LIFT, then how does the PAF use the K-8 as an AJT ? do they use any LIFT ?I thought that their FT-7s were basically for type conversion onto the F-7s..
not sure if it needs to be that specific. PLAAF just trains in the order of CJ-6 -> JL-8 -> JJ-9
whether JJ-9 is LIFT or AJT is really not that important
Questions on PLAAF flight training,
wiki claims that both the JL-9 and the L-15 are/have been ordered by the PLAAF. seems to me that these aircraft are somewhat similar to each other. if news of these orders is true, what will be the roles of these aircraft in PLAAF ?
on a more general note, how and on what aircraft is current PLAAF/PLANAF pilot training organised ? I mean all streams, fighters, transports, rotary etc.
from what i know, L-15 is not ordered. JL-9 is now known as JJ-9. At the moment, I assume that L-15 is not in PLAAF’s plans.
Sign In
