Yeah, that one’s pretty clear. Though I gave the quick and dirty version, SOC seems to have given the full skinny on what pricniples the S-300P series actually works on, I don’t think much more needs to be said in this regard.

Another correction to make mate:

Kh-41, Jane’s Air Launched Weapons:

A trials model of the Kh-41 was displayed at the 1992 Moscow Air Show. The missile was thought to be in the final stages of development and could have been intended as the replacement for AS-4 `Kitchen’ and AS-6 `Kingfish’ air-to-surface missiles. However, reports in 1994 suggested that any air-launched Kh-41 missile would be too heavy for aircraft carrier operations and that the programme was not funded from 1993. However, aircraft were still being displayed in 1996 with Kh-41 attached. In 1998, there were again proposals to fit this missile to the future Su-30/-32/-33 aircraft, for export to China and India. Integration tests were completed in 1997, and two flight tests reported in 1998. It is believed that the ship-launched version, P-270, will continue to be developed for possible fitment to later built Project 956A `Sovremenny 2′ class destroyers as a replacement for the SS-N-22 `Sunburn’.

Originally posted by crobato
Yeah right. Get your english lesssons again.

“For the detection and localisation of hostile radar emissions and jammers the FT-2000 makes use of four ground-based Electronic Support Measures (ESM) sensor posts, each of which is mounted on wheeled vehicles and can together track 50 targets simultaneously.”

LOL. Sorry man, I really think you need to read it again. Or Arthur’s post. Jeez that’s funny. 😀

And I don’t see how that picture with covers over the arrays helps at all. Aren’t you getting a bit ahead of yourself? And where are these things you think are for cooling?

Exactly, Einstein. China buys inferior Russian crap because it couldn’t buy American or European.

No, you said it was because of the embargo only.

Because they’re poor, numbnuts. Why did Finland (tho it isn’t East European, it operate crappy Russian planes out of fear and political expedience) went to the F-18s? Why is Croatia looking at F-16s? Why is Poland looking at western aircraft?

Nice try at changing the subject. I’ve already freely admitted that Russian equipment is not as good. Unfortunately, your argument that Russian equipment cannot be used in a Western fashion is obviously false.

WW2?? That’s phreakin laughable. Ever heard of Erich Hartmann? 350 kills.

You do know the Germans had a smaller air force than Russia, right? Thanks for proving my point.

Russian aircraft (and pilots) were aviation’s equivalent of turkeys in WWII. Russian aircraft in WW2 were mostly targets. Even the inferior Brewster Buffalo killed even more inferior Russian machines and pilots like rats.

Really? Perhaps you can explain why Russians are the top Allied aces of WW2 then? Or why German pilots were ordered not even to attempt to engage Yak-3s, because they’d definitely die? Or maybe why the French Normandie Niemen squadron had their pick of Allied aircraft, and also chose Yaks? God you’re an ignoramus. Do you have to work hard to make this much of an idiot out of yourself, or does it come naturally?

As for the larger forces, whenever you have two equally equipped forces, the larger one would prevail by a large margin because unlike static land warfare being outnumbered in the air usually meant having someone on your tail even as you’re going after another.

The Germans and Soviets were not equally equipped.

The Arabs were horrendously equipped as well as trained by Russians and lost accordingly even though they had a major numbers advantage.

Actually, their tanks were better than those of the Israelis in some cases. I guess you didn’t know that they had the advantage of IR illumination when the Israelis had nothing? They still lost. Tell me: fault of the tank, or the crew? Then you had Soviet air defense systems like the ZSU-23 and the Kub (three fingered death to the Israelis), which, when deployed, caused massive casualties among the IAF. Of course, these systems don’t work so great 30 years later.

You were the one who brought up the training and doctrine strawmen (Russian doctrines and training sucked too) when I pointed out bad quality Russian products that resulted in them being slaughtered in the Mideast (and practically every modern battlefield.)

Strawman my arse- you have not refuted a single point and have reduced yourself to just repeating yourself with general statements.

The Arabs were trained by Russians to use the weapons that Russians gave them. So you are blaming training?

Yes. Russian training is inferior.

Look numbnuts, a backward economy produces backward products.

Funny, the Soviet economy of WW2 produced some of the best pieces of equipment in the war.

There is no miracle in the world where a crappy economic structure could suddenly produce “world-class” weapons. If they could, they would use the same “world class” methods during peacetime and make money – which what military factories are forced to do to survive and why Sukhoi would have folded without China buying their crap.

I have yet to see any evidence that the Su-30MKK is crap. Do you have any? Or is this the part where you just repeat yourself, like the broken record you are?

he Germans slaughtered Russians. They lost only because they took on the two most economically potent nations on earth, the British Empire and the US, at the same time as Russia.

ROFLMAO! The British Empire of 1941, economically potent? Perhaps you can explain why most of their stuff was lend lease from the US? Why they made the smallest contribution to victory? Russia was the second most industrially powerful nation at the time, not Britain- jeezus take a history lesson, it’s embarassing.

The Germans was winning by a WIDE WIDE margin until Moscow and was winning again until Stalingrad. Both times, Hitler threw a monkey wrench into the equation.

Ahistorical Revisionist nonsense sold by German generals who blamed all their problems on Hitler, even when Hitler was responsbile for the good things as well as the bad.

No, I think five decades of being target practices for Western aircraft and a backward moribound economy that can’t produce a competitive refridgerator is pretty much an indictment.

I suppose I could quote a lengthy article in Business Week detailing Russian innovation in refridgeration technology I read last week, but what would be the point? You’re just dumb.

Numbnuts, aside from excuses and strawmen, you’ve given nothing that could counteract the stats.

Oh please. It’s so funny how you try and copy how I speak and debate to try and make yourself look less of a dumbsh1t. Don’t you have your own style?

A 102-0 record is pretty horrific. This is like a professional team versus a high school team. Even a minor league team could beat the majors once in 100 chances.

*yawn* Bored now. This is too easy. To review your “debate” style:

– simply ignore it whenever someone explains why those kill ratios don’t mean much, considering the engagement circumstnaces and disparities in training and support

– Use them to call every Russian plane ever made crap, even when of all those kill ratios, the only fighters among them are obsolete MiG-21s and MiG-23s- a full two generations behind the fighters they were fighting.

– simply repeat yourself when this is explained to you again

– just ignore any requests for evidence when asked what proof you have that a certain aircraft is crap.

Originally posted by crobato
[B]which has an armor piercing head.

You clearly know less about the concepts involved than I thought you did. Anti-tank missiles have HEAT warheads. Many anti-ship missiles do, or they rely on the kinetic energy (referred to in my edit) of the missile imapct to allow penetration and then detonate their warhead and any remaining fuel. Penetrating and damaging any armored structure is dependent on either the force of chemical energy to burn through, or sheer force (kinetic energy).

At 5m in height and maneuvering?

You can show that at 255kms launch range they spend their entire flight at 5m, maneuvering? Or is it a secret?

An SU-30MKK on an attack vector at 120km with Kh-31As is a lot easier target for an SN-2 than four C-803s at sea skimming range.

Presumes that the JH-7s will even get to their launch point, and that none will be shot down before they reach sea skimming. Also ignores CIWS and RAM systems.

Oh my god, it’s been posted in this board before.

“The induction of the Su-30 was’nt without its share of problems. The average servicibility of the 10 Su-30MKs fell to 69% during 1997-1998 and further reduced to 62% 1998-1999. Similarly, the average availability of SU-30K aircraft for operations also declined from six aircraft in 1997-98 to four aircraft in 1998-99, out of total strength of eight aircraft. This happened because the MoD did not order spares for the aircraft and the IAF was using spares supplied at the time of induction – supplied back in 1997. The MoD finally signed the general spares contract in January 1999.

Problems were multiplied due to the poor poduct support from the manufacturers.

Then why does your own quote say the MoD didn’t sign the spares contract till 1999?

Apart from delivery of eight SU-30K aircraft during 1997 the manufacturer was required to supply 72 associated equipment like tyres, brake parachutes, specialist vehicles etc. valuing US $ 347.85 million, equivalent to Rs 1252.25 crore during 1997-2000 in a phased manner. The contract explicitly stipulated that equipment to be delivered by the manufacturer would be new, unused, of current production and serviceable. However, the a large percentage of the equipment delivered by the manufacturer between 1997 and 1998 was old, used, corroded, defective and unserviceable, though full payment had been made. For example, the specialist vehicles supplied were old, corroded and inoperable and others items like parachutes were torn and damaged. Aircraft tyres were found to have cut marks during initial inspection. The IAF made 48 claims from sukhoi but only 15 were cleared as of July 1999.”

Considering induction was recent and the lack of spares contract signing for the MKIs until 1999, what does this prove? Can you show that these teething troubles persist, or not?

Like a Harpoon. 10 to 15m in midphase, dropping to 3 to 5m in terminal.

And you think a better motor can more than double the range of a missile of the same size, while flying that low the whole time? From what height was it launched?

Oh bull. The original BARS was intended to have a full complement of sophisticated air to surface weapons to go with it. That is the part that turned out to be the problem.

Last I checked, the MKI does have sophisticated surface to air weapons. If I’m incorrect, can you tell me what this has to do with Russia and China?

The AGM-65 was originally concieved for air superiority.

If it didn’t meet its original intentions, it’s lacking.

???? I’m sorry, was the Bars originally intended to be a toaster?

It proved inadequete for the purpose.

FYI information, Chinese semiconductor manufacturing is about many generations ahead of the Russians, and only two years behind the US. They have already begun 0.13 micron process, and already has 8 inch/300mm wafers. You’re looking at chips that comprise the mainstream for PCs other than the processor.

And yet you can’t display this supposed multi-generational lead in relation to Chinese military procurement, can you?

Sorry, but there is.

Ground target differentiation requires processing power because the CPU or DSP has to filter extraneous information and amplify relevant information. And if you need to do it in real time, the more CPU it needs.

The second paragraph does not follow from the first. What are the reasons for not upgrading an already capable radar, and what evidence do you have that the Bars ground target differentiation is inadequate?

Don’t worry about the Chinese. They have the basic semiconductor technology to create embedded CPUs for the task.

But you can’t show it to be done, now can you?

Which is why overtaking Russia in the radar and avionics department is inevitable, or is already taking place.

Pure supposition.

The arrays didn’t work They were a failure.

That *was* the point I was making.

Furthermore, they’re only air search radar, not fire control. They do not track, they do not guide, nor do they lock.

Thank you.

We know enough of the HQ-9/FT-2000, which is no secret. One array in that system can alone, track 50 targets. Check sinodefence.com. And that is quite possible since this smells like Patriot tech, and the Patriot system could actually track even more targets (up to 120).

I think you should check sinodefence.com again. Read it more carefully. It takes all of them to track 50, not just one.

Oh my god. You are an idiot.

Really? What do you think I said?

Skywatch is a 3D air search radar and a failed one at that. The FT-2000 HT-233 system is not just air search, but a tracking, locking and guidance. It is already in service.

Funny, where did I say Skywatch was the same as the HT-233 system? Nowhere. Take your strawmen arguments elsewhere please.

S-300 arrays like Tombstone are only single function. Each component of the S-300 system are seperate from each other, so one unit does air search, the other does tracking, the other does guidance, etc,. The reason why you can’t put all in one unit is the mutual interference which the Patriot system solved.

I’m staring at my S-300 information right now. Let me break it down for you (and I won’t call you an idiot, unlike you calling me one over something I didn’t even say)

Flap Lid: illumination and guidance. The original S-300 systems used this and the regiment Big Bird if available. Nothing more.
Clam Shell: added in later versions. Increased capability, but not requried for combat effectiveness.

The later versions, like Favorit, have different system designations of which I can’t be bothered typing, too long. but in reference to Tombstone, it’s job is target detection and tracking.

Those in the 052s are made by Chinese. Who would sell such arrays to the PRC?

The Russians.

The tech is so staggeringly ahead of any previous Chinese and Russian attempts

You have zero proof of that. Is this the part where you say it’s a secret?

that the tech had to be borrowed from somewhere, and with the resemblence of the arrays, it all screams “Patriot”. For the Chinese to have resolved all the sidelob and mutual interference issues is a staggering leap in radar technology that will lead to other things like arrays for AWACS.

The tech is certainly NOT from Russia.

Pure assumption without evidence. Some commentators clearly seem to think the Russians assisted, for one.

The HT-233 pics do not appear like another PAR. You don’t know what PARS looks like when it hits you. YOu can see different arrays and a pattern set across the grid. Anyone who has seen this and has seen the Patriot system can easily see the connection.

So what? Your effortless conflating of the HT-223 and the 052s is strange, considering you can’t even show them to be connected. I’ve already pointed out the limitations of the HT-223 system.

The HT-233 is only one vehicle, period. It does not have seperate search and fire control radars.

Yet it requires three (whoops, four) secondary sensor posts to reach full capability. Oh well.

You really don’t know anything do you? SPY-3 active arrays for the newest AEGIS are also liquid cooled.

And what’s wrong with my supposition that they just generate a lot of heat? Oh, that’s right, it’s not the most favoralbe one, never mind that you have no evidence for your point of view either.

Systems that physically exist on ships that are already launched.

We’re talking about reality.

Reality which you cannot define or measure, but which you assure me (thumbs up) top stuff! Because it’s a secret. :rolleyes:

Where is the Russian effort?

Nada.

No photograph, no ship. nothing.

*yawn*. We have already covered this.

More bull from you.

Most of the pictures are pretty detailed, enough to see pictures faces of workers taking a break and having a smoke.

Oh, of course, you can see workers having a smoke, it’s just a hop skip and a jump from assuring people with no evidence that you’re sure the system kicks ass and making all sorts of no evidnece, no testimony assumptions as to it’s capabilties. Because it’s a secret.

When the actual details of the ship isn’t released yet?

Coming from you, this is incredibly rich.

Even rudimentary in the relative AEGIS sense is still head of what the Russians ever did.

It may be, it may not be. It’ll take more than just an array on a launched ship to reverse the fact that China is not ahead of Russia.

Western weapons on the other hand, has a combat record and a satisfaction record that more or less, tends to ultimately back up what they say.

*shrug* Yup.

I’ve never seen comments more delusional.

R-77 is hardly being bought by anyone except India and China, both of whom have indigenous projects. China can expect to export the SD-10 and they won’t be restricted like the way AMRAAM is.

Deulsional eh? So tell me, where’s the market for SD-10. Besides Pakistan?

Given the fact that the SD-10 is being studied to make work on such radars like the Italian Grifo, French Thales and the Israeli ELTA—all radars being actively considered for the FC-1— it seems less and less likely to be a Russian seeker or datalink.

It’s being studied? Did it occur to you that the study might include the process of intergrating a Russian datalink with a foreign radar, or did that just slip your mind?

It’s a dumb argument. Russia is not France. So I guess France can sell to Pakistan too, is that it? Selling to both sides puts you in political ho****er. The French has a very mercenary approach in arms trading. The Russians are more or less consistent. If they back one side, they back one side. They back the Indians, so don’t expect them to sell systems that may end up being used against the Indians, or the Indians will really cut buying from the Russians. France is not the primary supplier for China and Taiwan; there is no ambiguity about Russia and the US as to who and who can sell in this and that side of the straits.

I think it depends on the item being sold.

Isn’t AGAT’s main office is in Moscow?

But it’s a Belarussian company, isn’t it?

Jane’s has been wrong before. I believe when it defies obvious politics, obvious facts, it has to be reexamined.

I only change my mind when I have two pieces of evidence, and one is superior to the other. If there’s only one piece of legitimate data, I must go with that one until new evidence comes to light.

I mean please—the seeker is the most technologically sensitive part of the missile. You want to give it away?

It may well be monkey model.

Yes.

Thank you.

No. The Chinese already got planar arrays operational and for quite some time.

Yes, but I wasn’t talking about the Chinese, I was talking about Russia. If funding had remained Soviet level, it’s quite possible the majority of fighter radars in teh VVS would now be phased (in view of the Russian decision that abandoned planar for their own forces).

But we know it didn’t work, right? They also pulled it out.

Exactly. That’s my point. But I don’t think it was pulled out.

YOu know you’re really a lot of bull. You’re so beaten in these arguments you;re looking for cracks.

I’m not responsible for how well you think you’re doing.

The Chinese did that test in secret but it was caught by US intelligence. The Chinese will certainly not disclose details, nor will the US, if such details will compromise US intelligence.

Absence of public details do not constitute lack of evidence.

The point is that it did happen. The test did took place.

I didn’t say it didn’t!

The arrays exist. They have been installed on ships that have already been launched.

Which, for the final time, is not the same as commissioned.

We know from the HT-233 array, that the HT-233 could at least scan 50 targets, and the naval arrays are an even newer development. The arrays have been tested on another ship along with the YJ-12 AshM.

The point is that both EXIST, when the Russian equivalent does not beyond the brochure proposal.

With completely unknown peformance paramters. That is my concern. As I said, I don’t buy this speculation calculus that you do. I don’t just jump from one system to another and just pray that maybe I’m right.

Originally posted by PRC4eva
[B]look Vympel, your surely getting your arse verbally beaten, you might as well apologize and give up and you will still be able to hold on to your dignity.

Either say something of substance or take your popcorn gallery bull**** elsewhere, moron.

you even admitted that of course the Chinese weapon system will be superior because it’s newer.. well duh! but then you try to play it down because the Russian stuff is old. We’ll take that as a defeat on your part 🙂

Why don’t you quote me then, fi that’s what I said?

don’t worry, we’l continue purchasing Russia’s garbaj so it can save the dying Russian industry for humanitarian reasons which will allow them poor russians to continue working and prevent them from mass migrating to China [/B]

Take that penis out of you’re mouth, it’s muffling your speech.

Don’t give me that supersonic hits harder stuff. It only does more damage if the head comes matched with an armor piercing design. Otherwise it will only just explode on impact the same with a subsonic missile. Without explosives and an armor piercing head, a missile hitting the side of an armored hull of a ship, which by the way, is thicker than a tank, will just leave a big dent.

What the? This is quite easily the silliest thing I’ve ever heard you say. First, do you understand the concept of kinetic energy? Second, what do you think the operating principle of anti-ship missile warheads is? Third, modern ships carry negligible armor to speak of, and in terms of pure thickness, even an Iowa BB, can be penetrated by a common anti-tank missile.

Even then an SU-30 can only carry two Oniks. In terms of warhead, that’s less than four C-803s.

Assuming of course the C-803s aren’t shot down in droves as they cruise beningly towards the target.

Truck launcher range by the way, off the Chinese coast is sufficient to cover the side of Taiwan facing the mainland coast. Likewise, on the other side, truck launched AshMs can still defend against an invasion fleet from the mainland if the entire ROC Navy has been sunk.

Protected, of course, by Russian SAMs.

Carrier born air defense is the best way to defend against fast low level attackers with four long range AshMs. Ships alone won’t cut it.

Which is assumed in my post.

China with 400 billion in foreign reserves, and you’re asking about funds?

Don’t try and change the subject: I do remember what you said, and you were referring to poor serviceability in the RuAF, which you attempted to use as proof that Russian aircraft were unreliable, which is uncontroversially explained by the dire lack of funds. In addition, I notice you have not responded to my request that you back up your claims about Indian Russian aircraft service rates.

It is based on its predecessor, so yeah, it should fly the same way. Range improvements could easily come from an improved turbojet engine. The C-802 has been out there since the mid nineties you know, so that’s plenty of time for improvement.

Supposition- and how does it’s predecessor fly?

Maybe you should refresh yourself with the Jane’s articles on this matter. Clearly at this point, the AGM potential of the radar is not fully realized. Once radars are used to make differentiation of ground targets, the processing requirements are much greater.

It is quite unusual for a buying nation to insist on using their own CPUs on a foreign bought system. Its not a matter of cost, as CPUs are pretty cheap. It’s a matter of seeing that the Russians—whose processor technology is frozen at the 486 to Pentium I level at least, ergo 0.8 micron tech—-do not have the CPU technology to realize BARS to its full potential.

BARS II will have an improved Russian processor. BARS III will have the Indian one. By the time HAL will be making MKIs domestically, the MKIs should supposedly be on the BARS III level. BARS III is the definite BARS on the MKI, not BARS I and BARS II.

APG-63 V1 is not a multirole ground attack radar, so it does not count. V2 was.

Hair-splitting. The principle is the same; merely because the radar can be and will be improved does not mean the original is lacking.

Why do you think the SU-30MKK in its original form, could not handle the Kh-31A in the first place? Insufficient CPU. The MK2 had to have an improved CPU and DSP to help support the system.

And this is relevant how? It’s still a Russian CPU. It ain’t Chinese now is it?

Processors are too cheap, and the planes are too few to insist on that. It has to be something far more fundamental.

No, that’s your preferred interpretation. If processors are so cheap, and planes are so few, I can quite easily say that there’s no reason not to do it.

Same reason why I think Brahmos will be better than Oniks.

It may well be ‘smarter’ (though, seeing as Oniks/Brahmos is based off Granit, it’s plenty smart already), but it’ll be limited by missile export range restrictions.

There is never such a thing as prefering to use your own CPU. This is unusual, and unpredecented. The Japanese used their own radar on their F-15s yes, but they didn’t insist on putting their own CPU on the APG-63.

It’s clearly an architectural deficiency on part of the BARS which the Indians saw, and which they only have the hardware to resolve it.

Or it’s clearly an opportunity to use indigenous technology in need of a boost to improve the capability of their most important quality fighter type. Furthermore, I see you once again have gone far and away from the original topic, which was China.

FACT: The arrays have been installed.

The ships could be seagoing within the year, given the rate of progress.

So what? FACT: The arrays were installed on the Baku and Gorshkov 20 years ago. I guess that must mean they’re excellent! :rolleyes: And what’s more, these ships, unlike the 052C, have actually been commissioned.

Just because things are secret does not mean they’re there.

Classic appeal to ignorance fallacy. You know nothing about these arrays, because it’s “secret”, but you’re certain all the same that they’re excellent. Can you see what’s wrong with this kind of argument?

Oh please. Skywatch is nothing like the Chinese PARS. And that one is not just a failure, it was removed from the Kuznetsov.

Why is Skywatch nothing like Chinese PARS? Can you explain how? Like you said, it’s “secret”, so you don’t know at all, do you? You’re just assuming something to be true because it’s what you want to be true. Furthermore, all the Kuznetsov pics out there still have the 3D arrays on it. Not to mention that the Russians have had passive electronic scan arrays on the S-300 system for over 20 years (you know, the ones China bought), I find it highly unlikely that those on the 052cs are 100%, hell, 50%, indigenous Chinese.

Pics of the Chinese PARs as they are being delivered, are shown in the CDF. They appear much more like the Raytheon made PARs used to support the Patriot system. It is a multifunctional PAR, where air volume search, tracking, locking, guidance, are all in the same unit rather than in seperate vehicles like the S-300 complex.

Oh, they “appear” like another PAR, so they must have the same characteristics.

Pictures of the land based Chinese equivalent, the HQ-9/FT-2000, also show trucks of a very similar layout. Like the Patriot system, the FT-2000 only relies on one control vehicle. The HQ-9 is often mentioned as the basis for the HHQ9 system on the 052C class DDGs.

Firstly, the S-300P also relies on one “control vehicle” and is fully combat capable with it’s Flap Lid, though Clam Shell (added on S-300PMU) helps. At regiment level, Big Bird comes into play. The FTC-2000 uses one central sensor post (which I assume is what you were talking about when you said “control vehicle”) and three auxiliary ones to reach full capability- and that’s not including a regiment level system.

Skywatch does not even the kind of cooling system the Chinese PARs are using, which is more like the SPY-3. There are eight large ducts around the mount, and the whole array now appears to be encased and cooled by liquid. You must be an active array to make that kind of heat.

Even in this exercise in pure speculation is correct, it is quite plausible that the Chinese PARs are so grotesquely heat inefficient they need cooling systems. This is why evidence and testimony is great. But, unfortunately, like you said, it’s “secret”, so everything you just waxed poetic about is pure guesswork, correct?

Rudimentary for an AEGIS type system, that is. This still puts it ahead of any Russian efforts.

No, see, what would put it ahead of a Russian effort would be actual evidence and testimony as to its capabilities, rather than just best-case scenario, completely uninformed guess work about systems mounted on ships that aren’t even commissioned.

Its called secrecy.

Appeal to ignorance. I can make up anything and say “it’s a secret”, it doesn’t mean I’m anywhere near right. This seems to be your classic fall back position: you’re asked to back up something, you just say “it’s secret”- which means you don’t know at all.

Its better than having a lot of paper stats with an undelivered, vapor ware product, which the Russians are notorious for, e.g. air launched Moskit.

I fail to see on what planet it’s better to just make up stuff as you go along based on poor pictures that circulate around the internet and then just say “it’s secret” when called on it.

There is doubt about the Russian technology part (why would Russians sell them a technology that competes against their own market the R-77).

Big doubts.

Not according to the evidence published by one of the most prestigious military review journals (jane’s) it isn’t. I’m sorry if you find it incovenient.

The R-77MPD is not a sellable product. More vaporware.

And this is because ….? Or is that a secret too?

My golly, if anything, the Russians are best know for hyperbole. After a decade of marketing all sorts of stuff, how many have actually been accepted?

Why don’t you give me some examples of this hyperbole, and how it’s different from Western manufacturers, who also hawk their stuff like it’s the best thing since sliced bread? That is how you sell weapons.

Russian participation on the SD-10 is contrary to logic.

1.) It competes against their own R-77 market. More SD-10s, less sales for R-77s. It’s not just the Chinese market, SD-10 is also being positioned for export.

Did it occur to you that maybe noone will want it? It would take decades for new Chinese aircraft and weapons to carve a niche in the already saturated marketplace- long enough perhaps that the SD-10 won’t be a threat to the R-77s position.

2.) It has a chance of being used against the Indians, which are Russian customers.

And? France has sold to both China and Taiwan, I guess that means all those French peices of kit in China are a delusion.

3.) SD-10 appears currently requiring a Chinese made radar, fitted on the J-8II. If SD-10 has Russian systems, why don’t you test it on SU-27s and SU-30s?

Who’s to say it won’t be?

4.) If the Indian government really believed that Russians are participating in the SD-10 project which may be procured by Pakistan, a formal political objection should have been made long ago.

Considering that the seeker is from Belarus, shouldn’t they be complaining to them?

So yeah, it defies major logic.

Judging from those points, I don’t see any major defying of logic. What we have is clear, unambiguous statements to that effect, and only easily answered questions to the opposite.

Existing evidence? Those articles are innuendo and do not count as evidence. Testimony of unproven innuendo does not count as evidence.

A Jane’s Air Launched Weapons entry doesn’t count as evidence? It’s ‘inneuendo’? It counts far more than the musings of someone on an internet forum, I’m sorry to say.

The basic fundamental semiconductor technology to realize this design fully is not available to the Russians.

Which will change. However, it’s still far more impressive than anything the Chinese have on their fighters now isn’t it?

You would have to revolutionize Russia’s semiconductor industry to a Western exportable standard first, maybe in the same level, like say, Malaysia.

You were discussing the use of twist-cassergrain antennas; I was referring in reply to the new-generation stuff they’ve got ready or in the works.

Excuse me, but stats don’t mean crap.

Of course, you think as long as you can see something that looks like a phased array, it must be the best thing since sliced bread! Who cares how it performs- or if it performs at all? Right? That’s an insane point of view. If Russians thought like you were thinking now, they’d think the Kuznetsov had the best PAR ever.

After a decade of not fulfulling rosy stat sheets, I can’t help but feel skeptical to a lot of hot air stats, which is just marketing gimmick.

Mere generalization.

Show me the real stuff, real action.

You think saying “may be” a lot, completely ignoring requests for any data about performance, flight profile characteristics, and pointing to a vague article about a test fire is “real action”?

But when an actual missile like the C-803 is tracked by US military intelligence for a flight range of 255km, well over its publicised stat of 160km, that means a different thing. Its reality.

And once again, you completely ignored my request as to the altitude at which the missile was fired, it’s flight profile on the way- not unlike your hand waving about your utter lack of any concrete knowledge about the arrays on the 052Cs, which you, with no evidence, characterize as being all sorts of things.