“In addition, China’s Xian production facility has taken delivery of components for 95 Su-27SK fighters for a combined total, to date, of 273 platforms.”

but arent the J11s being assembled by SAC in shenyang?

Hmmm …. interesting JH-7 & JH-7A pictures …. but I have just one question regarding the radome-colours !

If I’m not wrong the newer production “standard” JH-7’s are getting the light-grey painted radomes … but why not the new production JH-7A’s ????

Deino :confused:

firstly, im not quite sure if JH7s are still being made now that the JH7As are ready.

there might be a number of reasons for the disparity in radome colours. it could be that some of the old JH7s are being used to try out a new colour scheme (hence the brand new look); it could be that there is a time lag in the release of some of the photos, so perhaps the shot of the JH7A with the green dome was taken before the new grew scheme was implemented…etc.

I can see what you’re saying. But the thing is, a J-7MF is an additional investment when you ALREADY invested funds on the FC-1. It’s not a question whether the F-7MF is cheaper than the FC-1; its an issue that the FC-1’s funds had already been spent and allocated and you’re still spending developing another fighter on top of that.

There are so many advantages on the J-7MF. The J-7E has been very popuilar with the PLAAF pilots (some prefer to fly it over the J-11). It’s also a strong sentimental favorite. The logistics is there. The manufacturing infrastructure is there. You can use a domestic engine like the Kunlun on it.

But you are also initiating another expensive development cycle. The plane might take another at least three years before it can enter service. You’re spending money on top of what you already spent on the FC-1.

I also mentioned the J-7s are short legged and the payload is small, which hinders them against a Taiwan scenario.

At best, the J-7MF is yet another balm, a short term solution, and a little too late for that too. If it was ten years ago it would still be okay. You’re spending resources on a short term solution. In contrast the FC-1 still has more development legs—it can still be lightened and strengthened by using more composite sections for example. The latest RD-33 variants can go up over 9,000kg, even 10,000kg, which means the RD-93 can follow the same development path. Compare to the R-13/R-25/WP-13/Kunlun class of turbojets whose development potential is almost exhausted and is a certain dead end. You won’t get much more power from an engine of that size and diameter, and being a turbojet, you can’t be as economical as a turbofan.

J-8F will be materially more expensive but again, its development funds has already been consumed, and the plane appears almost available for use without consuming more development resources and cash.

very good points, and i supose the unit cost will come down significantly if the PLAAF also decides to buy it.

but even then the cost might be a little too high, and the PLAAF might be forced to take on more J7Gs to beef up the numbers, which is huge waste of resources in the long run.

i’m not arguing about the superiority of the FC1 in the long term, just wondering about its practicality.

Yeah I saw an article in the WMF that made mention of so called J-7MF flights.

Also it’s not the J-7E but the J-7G. I think what PLAAF is trying to do is save as much funds to buy as many J-10s and Flankers as possible.

Problem of J-7 is that they’re a tactical handicap. In a Taiwan scenario you need range and loiter time, and short legs ain’t good enough for an offensive role. FC-1 has a more efficient engine than a J-7 thanks to its turbofan, which is a reason why the type can be considered. It also has a higher payload rating (3800kg vs. 1000-2000kg for a MiG-21 type) so you can carry more external fuel tanks and bomb loads.

Overall you can see right off, the FC-1 is a more versatile design. You get a greater range envelope and more payload possibilities.

yeah, good points, but at 14m or so, one really has to wonder if the PLAAF can afford to use the FC1 as its main workhorse and still be able to fulfil its high end commitments of flankers and J10s. and it will be an even greater waste of resources to have two or more low end fighters (FC1, J7G, J8II) as well as two or more high end fighters (J10, J11, J8H) serving in one AF at the same time!

if the PLAAF goes for the J7G, then they can have an AF of roughly the same size as if they went for the FC1, but have a higher percentage of J10s and flankers in that force because of the lower prices of the J7s.

it will ultimately depend on a weighing or risks and an assessments of how confident the PLAAF and PLANAF feels about their top fighters. if the PLA feels that it wont loose that many of its top end fighters in the fight for the skies over taiwan (ie, enough will be left to be able to effectively take advantage of its air superiority by bombing ground targets), then i think they would go for the J7Gs. if they feel they need to throw everything but the kitchen sink, then i supose the FC1 will be a better choice.

even then one has to wonder about the usefullness of the FC1, as i dont really see how they will be likely to have a decisive effect on the conflict if the PLA’s best fighters (along with its best pilots) have already been shot out of the sky.

Exposing fc1 is not the problem Pretty much sure that more high tech J10 will be offered to others. The problems is that China needs to compete with EF2000, Gripen. Rafale etc. Maybe they came a long way but this field is about getting further then others. I don’t think even J10 has passed those opponents. Why bother over the low tech part of that team?

a) the J10 has not been sold yet, so its hard to say at this point whether the J10 will be offered for export soon. even if it is eventually offered (which it most likely will), we are talking about 5~10 years time frame. plenty of time for new versons of the J10 to be developed, hence the export verson will not represent the full capacities of the plane, giving you a safety margine.

on the other hand, the FC1 is being offered for export even before the PLAAF has placed any orders. and with the way things are going, if the PLAAF orders them, they will be lucky to get their planes at the same time as the export customers. this means that the data comerically available will be fully up to date, and it has to stay that way if CAC wants to continue selling the FC1 abroad.

b) china has never tried to compete with the likes of EF, Gripen and Rafale etc, so im not sure what point you are making there. china is currently competing against the likes of Mig29s and earlierish blk F16s and M2Ks for orders. even then it is competing with value for money as opposed to superior capacity (might change if the J10 comes on the market). if the J7MF has the same or better flight charateristics and TWR as the J7E and can hold a radar the size of the FC1’s, then at half the price, i would go for the MF in a heartbeat.

i suspect the PLAAF is holding a similar view, and whether they go for the FC1 or J7MF might depend on the results of a head-to-head fly-off. i think it makes sense. its always good to have competition. if the fly-off shows that the MF is only slightly less capable or even just as capable as the FC1, then that’ll save the PLAAF a hell of alot of money as the winner will most likely become the workhorse for the PLAAF for the next 20 years. if the MF turns out to be a bag of hot air, well all you ‘wasted’ is a couple mil on the prototypes. weight the potential gains from the potential loses and it looks like a good deal.

flogger, i dont know you, but your credibility is not being helped by you recent string of replies.

i have read the jane’s report and no way can anyone with even adequit knowledge of the english language describe its meaning as ‘clear as water’ (it also doesnt help to have two apparent versons of the same report). aside from the already raised issue of what janes meant by ‘it’ (FD60 or LY60), there is also the issue of just what China National Machinery Import & Export actually said to janes. did they just confirm the development history of the missile or did they also give the range figures? when faced with such a problem, people usually try to find alternative sources of information to try to prove or disprove one argument or another.

while everyone else has been doing that, you seem totally content to just sit on this unclear report and claim that it is fact even when you yourself acknowledge the possibilty that it could be wrong. instead you insist on getting conformation or denial from a source, while unquestionable in its credability, has never in its history made any such comments of such detail about weapons systems. to me, that is not the actions of an objective observer trying to find the truth.

just in case i am wrong and you are interested in the truth (which i now doubt), lets have a look at the other sources of information available, shall we?

1) almsot all sources agree that the PL11 is based on Aspide/AIM7 tech, so it would be logical to assume that the range of the former is at least compareable to the later.

2) china has also developed a BVR AAM of similar dimentions (SD10), so it would be logical to assume that the range of the PL11 should be compareable to that.

3) we know the range of the SAM verson missile (LY60) on which the FD60 (and where did anyone say the FD60 is the PL11?) is based (18km), we also know the converson critera of missile ranges from surface launched to air launched via the sparrow and sea sparrow, so we should be able to deduce a fairly accurate range for the FD60 based on that.

none of the above would even suggest that the PL11’s range is anywhere near as low as janes gave for it, and i cant think of any logical theories as to why the missile’s range would be that low, and unless you can, i would really have to question whether you yourself truthly believe the PL11 only has a range of 25km.

got anything in english? 😮