So what next?

China paused the imports of Su27sk after assembled 95 aircrafts?

nothing says china is stopping or pausing production of Su27s/J11s at 95 ac, just says china suspended russian kit orders.

Huh that wasnt good because China every year can assembling 15 aircrafts that was a slow progress. The present Su 27sk was 20 years ago specifications which is techology obsoleted.

IIRC, the 15 per year is only an average, which was dragged down as a result of SAC’s stalled start.

I think the move is bargaining with Russia to provide the Su27SM(right now only three had been delivered to RUAF)which has 50% more capbaility than the SK as claimed.

dont think china needs to put pressure on the russians for them to offer the SM. in fact, its the russians that are trying to put pressure on china to buy the upgraded verson, but china said ‘No thanks’.

it could be that SAC is trying to bargain for a better deal, with lower cost and/or more ToT. but there is not enough info as of yet to bring that theory out of the ‘pure speculation’ category.

For this moment China speed up the productions of J10 which had been sacrificed in previous yeras in favour of the Flankers.Now the Su27SM is exhibited in China’s Zhuhai airshow,does that means Russia willing to compromise?

SAC builds the J11 and CAC builds the J10, two companies with two sets of production facilities. in fact, the two are bitter rivals for PLAAF and foreign contracts, so there is no case for suggesting that one company would slow or stop the production of its product to help its rival boost their sales.

and as i said before, the SM upgrade was offered and rejected by the chinese long before zhuhai 04.

and what would be the point in that? currently most countires can buy flankers from russia if they wanted them, meaning china will have to compete on price. not a terrably good idea if ur just out to make a quick buck.

no, PLAAF demands will keep SAC’s lines busy for quite some time to come, and in the meanwhile, the chinese have got the FC1, all their new trainers, the J8IIM, the JH7 and maybe the J10 to sell.

Picked this up at CDF:

Hey…wolfy….care to translate this 😮 (pls 😮 😮 ), I thought I saw a PL-9D in that

eeeee! 😮 NO!

lol. 😉

its actaully ‘fan art’ of sorts.

apprently, someone saw something about the new ‘SPYDER’ SAM the israelis are developing (Python5 meets Derby), had a look at the flood of new chinese SAMs (shengong2, PL9D, FLV1, CQW2, ES1) and trought that they are all lacking in that they can only engage targets at short range when compared to the proposed israeli system. thus, he/she (i’ll assume its a he) proposed that china follows suit and develop a ‘SPLSD’ system (PL9C meets SD10 carried by the swedish FM12).

he then goes through how this system will be superior to all the others, bla bla bla.

the only interesting thing i can see is when he gives on specs on the PL9C. however, im not sure how reliable his numbers are. here goes:

“PL9C has ‘multi-element’ IR seeker and proximity fuse, giving it good all aspect engagment capabilities…the seeker uses a new, programmable digital processor. the use of digital technology improves target reconisation capabilities, making the seeker very resiliance to background and man-made interferance. it is also possible to use software upgrades to counter newly introduced IR interfearance means…the missile contains 12kg of HE (wrapped in 5000 ballbarings), and can kill a target (i assume fighter sized or smaller) within 7m and has an effective blast redious of 13m. using active radio proximity fuse, the missile has a single shot kill probability of 80%. using a two stage rocket motor, the missile has a max speed in excess of M2.1, combat range, 0~21km.”

additional specs:

” PL9C, seeker feild of view: 3°; max tracking envolope: ±40°; max turn rate: 28°/s; max g-loading: 35s; missile length: 2900mm; missile width 157mm; wingspan: 500mm and 650mm; missile weight: 115kg.”

” SAm verson PL9D has a range of 800~8000m, effective combat height of 30~4500m”

SD10 specs:

” missile length: 3850mm; missile width: 203mm; wingspan: 674mm; weight: 180kg; max range: 70km; max speed: M4; max g-loading: 38Gs; combat height, 25km.”

the rest is just how he thinks all this could be added together and how well he thinks it will perfrom.

is there a contest here? :confused: :p

the Su27 and Mig29 were the high and low of the soviet, and the russian hi-lo fighter mix. their spin-off multi-role cosins – the MKK and ‘Mig29M'(?) – are still pretty much in the same position in relation to each other as the originals.

the flanker is superior is pretty much all operational feilds. higher payload, longer range (with or without AA-refueling), bigger radar (=better radar performance), higher speed(maybe, cant remeber for sure), more room for avionics (=better perfromance, since all avionics are of the same tech level).

in terms of agility. well, at low fuel states, the MKK is said to rival the Su27 in terms of agility, which would put it at least on pair and probably better then the Mig. with the same combat load, the flanker is still most likely better, as its more powerful engines can handle the extra weight better then the lighter Mig with weaker engines.

the only area where the Mig has an advantage is in terms of cost. its cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate.

so, basicially the choice between the Mig29 and Su30 is one of money. if they can afford it, ppl will always go for the flanker, and will only settle for the fulcrum if they are a little cash strapped. not that the newest Mig29 is something to sneer at either. its a very nifty and powerful little thing, and a good match to any western 3rd/3.5 gen fighter. its just second best when put against the flanker. 😉

It’s a bit hard for me to find these now. I am the kind that reads things, but don;t keep them. But I was told by very well informed sources (the type that tells you everything 3 month before you see a pic of)on Chinese BBS that this is the case. The construction of the 052Bs were suspended and the entire superstructure was redesigned.

doesnt make sense.

if the HHQ9 was delayed, then all they would need to change is the missile. the superstruture and PAR could, and should have remained, as then u can easily upgrade the ships to their original specifications after the VLS problem has been resolved.

this would be far cheaper, far quicker, and give the ships far more potential for future upgrades then changing the design of the superstructure halfway through construction (if thats possible to start with, that is).

sooo many pilots. :p

Wolfy, if you are not too busy…….care to do a translation job again 😮

Posted by Xinhui at CDF and he made these comments:

well, its basically a very long winded way to say that XXX institue successfully carries out the safety test of XXX sub releasing liquid oxygen underwater. the test was carrier out on the 29th, based on a similar test carrier out on jan29 2002. 😉