VympelOriginally posted by PhantomII
I thought the R-77 (AA-12) had mid-body wings, with funny looking control surfaces at the back.
SOC’s referrign to the potato mashers- the mid-body fins are too small to be an issue for internal carriage; after all, look at the cropped fin AIM-120C.
VympelOriginally posted by PRC4eva
[B]for starters, the J-10 is already superior to the MiG-29, which is cursed with a bad combat record and maintenance issues.
Wow, a new fighter is maybe superior to one pushing 25 years of age. So impressive! What’s the next achievement? A helicopter better than the original AH-1 Cobra? We’re all waiting with baited breath for this wonderful achievement!
Chinese attack helicopters? ever heard of the WZ-10? Chinese naval ships have already began surpassing their Russian equivelants. does Russia have any air defense destroyers comparable to 170 or 171?
You mean those middling displacement destroyers of which you know nothing about except that their job is “air defense”? Call me when you actually have some facts. The day China surpasses Russian ships is the day they build ships of similar displacement and capability, with completely indigenous technology. Ships like the Slava (I could be really mean and say Kirov)- or subs like the Akula II SSN and the upcoming Yasen SSN, or Borey SSBN. Of course, China’s new, still unfinished SSN will be around Victor III level of capability, which is where the Russians were 30 years ago.
These “russian gear” you keep referring to came at a time when there was no Chinese alternative..but now there IS one, such as engines, etc and they’re a bit better than the Russian versions..
Like I said, the small increase in thrust of the WS-10 over the original, 1970s tech AL-31F is hardly impressive, considering the Russian engines that have been developed since then. Like D-30F6M, AL-31V, AL-35, AL-37FU, AL-41 … etc.
even the J-11s built in Shenyang are of better quality than the Su-27Ks.
Yes yes, we’ve all heard the much ballyhooed nicer finish of J-11s over Su-27SKs. Call me when it makes a difference in combat.
SOC dealt with the rest quite handily. Push your ego out of the way of your perception.
VympelOriginally posted by GoldenDragon
I agree.When a 102 – 0 record of the F-15 over Russian aircraft stares you in the face, you just have to admit that Russian aircraft is practically worthless even though your nationality (in my case, Chinese) bought a whole bunch of these cruddy planes.
:rolleyes:
Speaking of which ….
VympelOriginally posted by crobato
[B]Let it fly first.I’ve heard of crap like the Sunburn, the Uran/Switchblade, or the Alfa/Club being air launched for years (decade) REAL SOON NOW.
And guess what.
Were they EVER, EVER had air launched variant ever made at all?
You don’t think the X-41, X-35 are real? Right. We don’t all have the luxury of paranoid Western news sources pointing out the latest Chinese threat to Taiwan (always ridiculously exaggerated, of course).
And 70KM for the Kh-31A is far even less so.
Yes. Tradeoffs. Luckily, the Kh-31A is not the only option available to the Su-30MK, as you know.
What you mean one or two?
You were the one who thought that only “one or two” missiles could be shot down, didn’t you?
A JH-7 can hold 4. A regiment of 20 aircraft can launch 80 missles, not to mention that this missile is ship launched, truck lunched, and sub lunched.
All of which apply to Oniks/Yakhont (except the 4 per JH-7 of course, you want vastly superior destructive power and intelligence you pay for it in weight- and I’m not referring to warhed size, but what happens to a ship struck by an ASCM the size of Yakhont at supersonic speed). Not to mention that no ship will be stupid enough to sit off the Chinese cost within truck launcher range, but there you go.
I think you also overestimate supersonic missiles. Wonder why the West isn’t going for supersonic missiles? A subsonic missile can weave, dodge.
So can supersonics.
It can fly extremely low.
So can supersonics.
It has a smaller RCS
Depends on the missile design.
and produces less heat.
Not particularly relevant to radar tracking, but true.
YOu would need pretty good radar to differentiate against the surface clatter.
Luckily pretty good radar is not a problem for a navy expecting to face JH-7s.
Supersonic AshMs tends to fly in a straight line. If you want it to fly low and weave, it will take an awfully big missile since it will use up that much fuel. That’s why the Sunburn is so big. But even then it only has a 120km low trajectory. Your Oniks/Yakhont only has a 120km low flight trajectory. For it to get 250km range, it uses a high profile that makes it easier to detect.
And you know anything about the flight profile on the C-803 which is the same size as it’s predecessor? No.
Let’s make it clear one thing—the Kh-31A is no sea skimmer.
My argument doesn’t depend on it being that.
And the facts got the RuAF showing a very low serviceability;
Erm- funds, hello?
Russian aircraft in the IAF service only 60%
You’ve got a source for that?
and I bet the PLAAF as well.
Betting doesn’t enter into it. Facts please.
BARS has not shown its effectiveness or superiority yet, since apparently it is having CPU insufficiency, which is why the Indians are putting their own CPU on it.
Improving a radar in later blocks does not mean the CPU is ‘insufficient’, it merely means it can be improved. This is like saying the AN/APG-63(V)1 sucks because the V(2) came out.
Even more it highlights the weaknesses of Russian’s electronics industry, as lacking a modern state of the art semiconductor industry.
Because the Indian’s want to use their own stuff? This persistent reference to preference of foreign over domestic is as repetetive as it is fallacious in proving anything.
Look, they didn’t pick the current radar over the offered Russian Zhuk-M for nothing.
It could’ve been any number of reasons, including the ever important foreign vs domestic preference. I don’t know, and neither do you.
Don’t make a fool of yourself.
Both ships have been launched.
Launched does not mean commissioned. There is quite a large difference.
The arrays have been tested and installed.
But you can’t answer a single question about what they can do, can you?
The Russians don’t even have anything close to these in solid matter.
Ever heard of the Sky Watch 3D electronic scan phased array radar on the Kuznetsov and Admiral Gorshkov? These were 1980s designs that were put on *commissioned* ships- and they failed- never lived up to their true potential- including a highly intergrated air battle management system tied to them. Too much for Soviet 80s industry I guess. Some sources say they’re inoperable, though who can say with the recent refits Kuznetsov has gone through.
But it illustrates two points:
1: the Russians actually did have something close to these in solid matter- over 20 years ago. Extremely solid, in fact, and still visible on the Kuznetsov. I imagine when the Admiral Gorshkov goes to India, we’ll perhaps see this system as it was meant to be, considering the better processors and such out now.
2: the fact that things that look like phased arrays are on ships doesn’t automatically mean they’re any good,
(as you can see, I have no qualms about pointing out Russian failures)
And hey, to really get you annoyed, I can easily raise the more possibility (shared by an article posted on this very forum) that the Russians had a hand in the arrays on the 052C.
What a load of bull.
The hand drill comment was KnAAPO’s own advertisement.
And you took such obvious nonsense at face value without thinking, because you were so eager to believe it, god knows why.
China “unremarkable” feats including quadrupling its GDP every decade.
Which has nothing to do with what I’m talking about- this isn’t the Economic Achievements Forum, this is Air Forces Monthly. If I gave a toss about such matters, you’d see me on those boring forums.
FACT. You have ships already installed with these arrays and may be in service within the year.
And you can’t tell me a thing about them or what they can do, save that they’re ‘arrays’ and that the ships ‘may’ be in service within the year. I’m completely unimpressed. Especially considering that, for example, the December 2003 article “A Paper Tiger No More” calls the arrays on the 052C type simply “rudimentary”.
FACT. The equivalent Russian vessels are not even close to going past the drawing board.
And? We both know the reason for that is cash, not a lack of technical know how, besides, wow, 6,500t destroyers with unknown stats, performance, and weapons. Never been done before!
If they’re that easy, how come the R-27 and the R-77 do not have lofted flight paths and dual burn motors. In fact, such features are supposedly going only to the next version of the R-77. The lofted version of the R-27 never made it past the drawing board.
Now you’re comparing 25-30 year old missile designs of the Soviet Union with new Chinese ones incorpating new Russian technology, even while the same country goes after missiles like the R-77MPD!
Yup. And yet the Russians had not done it after all these years the West had it.
Obviously. I don’t argue against facts. Just hyperbole. This is relevant to the debate how? I will not be drawn into a silly “russia vs the west” argument, because a: because russian military technology is inferior to the West in most, if not all, departments and b: this is not what the thread is about, now is it?
It could be, but the Russians in my book, AGAT, must be pretty desperate to sell the seeker alone to the Chinese, meaning it does not expect to count on Vympel (the company) to buy a lot of these seekers to recuperate the investment.
Or maybe they just like profit?
And do you HONESTLY believe it’s Russian? For a missile that is expected to be used by Pakistanis against Indians, which are Russian clients? To shoot down Russian made planes like MiG-29s, MiG-21s and SU-30s?
No, but it has enough Russian participation that it sure as hell isn’t indigenous Chinese, and it illustrates the point that China isn’t ahead quite well I think.
Major contradiction of logic here.
That is why anyone would common sense would have major reservations that the SD-10 seeker would be Russian.
That’s what the reports say. I’m sorry if you find it inconvenient, but until evidence is presented, I go to the existing evidence.
To be honest, I’ve not seen Russian avionics that are in service or in sellable condition to be better than Chinese ones. Fancy glass cockpits don’t mean anything, and we have seen Nintendo displays from SU-30MKKs to JH-7s.
I never mentioned fancy glass cockpits, though they’re quite nice I must admit.
I see SU-27s and SU-30s, for example, still using old generation Cassegrain style antennas, when even J-8IIs and JH-7s are already using indigenous planar arrays.
N011M Bars. You and I both know if the Russians actually had the funds they would have better antennas (hell, they’d have new fighters), but the technology is undeniably there.
They have already been shown to do it. You just don’t want to open your eyes. [/B]
How have you shown me anything worth looking at? You can provide me with no stats, no performance characteristics of any kind- about anything, lots of “may bes” about future Chinese developments of which you know very little, spurious suppositions appealing to the ‘intent’ of the Chinese or Russians in doing a certain thing, and red herrings about the West, not to mention a consistent attempt to steer my argument away from what I made.
I’m quite willing to concede anything once the evidence is put in front of me, that’s what allows for reasoned argument, but I will not concede to mere innuendo and self-assured, ambiguous supposition.
VympelOriginally posted by SD-10
[B]So according to you the Nationalist people are less intelligent.?
Nationalism is a cancer in the mind of humanity. People with nationalist tendencies tend to talk up their own countries achievements and belittle those of others, somehow taking comfort in “their” country being “better” (which is usually nothing more than a biased illusion). Nothing good comes out of it, just envy, greed, intolerance, delusion, lies, hate and war.
Of course, nationalism is worse than simple patriotism- there’s a difference between love/devotion to one’s country, and the belief that your country is superior to someone else’s and deserves primacy.
VympelGood to see Nationalist **** Waving (TM) is still in effect by the less intelligent folks. We have some of those here, so don’t feel the need to apologize. 😎
VympelOriginally posted by crobato
[B]It hasn’t flown yet, it hasn’t flown yet.Simple as that.
A useless point. It makes not a whit of difference, unless you want to argue that it never will fly and won’t work, which is a ridiculous comment as we both know.
Except that your plane will be shot down long before that.
It may, it may not- but I’d rather be in an Su-30. At least I won’t be Super Hornet meat (which is just embarassing).
Sorry, it’s better for a C-803 to be shot down instead of an entire MKK.
If you can even get there. 255kms doesn’t make you safe. Not by a long shot.
Besides, with smaller subsonic missiles, the strategy is saturation attack with ECM. You can shot down one, maybe two. But you cannot get them all.
One or two subsonic missiles? That’s a blatant underestimation of the defensive screen of a few AEGIS equipped vessels, let alone a CVBG, is capable of dealing with and a ridiculous overestimation of the ability of subsonic missiles, let alone the amount of JH-7s that would be able to be tasked for such a strike.
Yes, but look who got stuck with a bad reputation?
Who cares about reputation? I’m talking facts.
Which means nothing (J-10 radar may be a phase array version of Type 1473).
The demonstrated effectiveness and superiority of the N011M Bars ‘means nothing’? And the best you can think of is that the J-10 radar “may be” something or other? It “may be” a lot of things, including complete crap. Where’s the evidence?
I will show you the multifunctional active array on the DDG 170/171, and the Russians simply do not have any equivalent to it in service or the drawing board.
You mean those two not even commissioned vessels of which anyone outside of the design bureau knows next to nothing about? Do you have any performance data? What missiles do they guide? Search/track range? Targets tracked/ engaged? Reliaiblity? MTBF?
Man, man, many. Russia is only ahead in military technology and that’s only because of the Soviet era spending. The only other science level Russia is ahead is materials (metallurgy) technology.
Military technology *is* what this topic is about.
But in other areas—quality control, plastics, electronics, precision manufacturing, machine tooling, telecommunications—Russia has fallen behind.
Badly.
I’ll believe it when I see it. You tend to go overboard with your underestimations of Russian manufacturing and ability (re: your recent “one hand-drill” comment regarding one of the largest aircraft plants in Russia) and talking up of China’s currently extremely unremarkable feats in the military field. They have yet to do anything to impress me. Basically- when the XXJ is in service, that’s when I’ll be interested.
[qutoe]Whatever it has left as an advantage, it will be gone within a decade, if not before 2010.[/quote]
Again, I’ll believe it when I see it. There’s next to no concrete evidence of such a development, only lots of fevered speculation and supposition regarding systems that aren’t even in service.
In terms of economy, infrastructure development, commercial technology, it is, and quite a lot.
Which is not the topic I was discussing now was it?
The airframe and booster of the SD-10 is Chinese. Only the seeker may have Russian involvement. The rear side fins dogtooth approach is quite novel—it improves missile agility and reduces the torque needed to turn the fins at high speed. Only the AIM-9X and the Japanese AAM-3 uses dogtooth fins, but only in the front and not with a BVRAAM.
We both know that the airframe and booster are hardly rocket science, to use a really bad ironic pun.
The lofted flight profile of the SD-10 and its dual mode motor certainly did not come from the Russians, since Russian AAMs don’t have either.
Now you’re just being silly. It’s not like the Chinese waved their magic ‘chinese know how’ wand and added a lofted flight profile. It’s a simple matter of programming.
These parts of the SD-10 seem more Western—lofted flight profile is learned from the Italian Aspide and Sparrows, while the dual burn motor approach from the Israelis and the Python 3 motor.
While the seeker head, the very brain of the missile, and the inertial guidance system and datalink, is from Russia/ Belarus (former Soviet and in the exact same condition with Russian, as well as an obviously symbiotic relationship with Vympel etc.). Without which it would just be a glorified dumb fire missile.
It is certainly in the area of electronics. Are Russian CPUs being exported to the US? Chinese CPUs (ARCA) are, inside Wyse Network Computers. Russia got 12 inch/300mm wafer semiconductor production?
I wouldn’t know. When Chinese military avionics are actually shown to best Russian ones, that’s when I’ll be interested.
When you have basic electronic/semiconductor/computer technology advantage, soon you will have an advantage on areas reliant on electronics, which means avionics, radar, and communications for aircraft for example. Why do you think the Chinese want to replace the radar on the J-11 with their own—against Sukhoi’s own roadmap for the SU-27?
I’m sure they want to do a lot of things. When they actually do do it, and can be shown to do it, I’ll be very interested.
Maybe you should read more what the Russians have to say, and why they fear that Chinese arms purchases may—no WILL—diminish in the future. [/B]
Of course they’ll diminish. In this entire thread you’ve insisted on arguing against everything but the point I was making. I hate strawmen arguemtns.
VympelUnlikely, go to Walmart and one could see that most of the flashlights are made in China or Mexico.
There’s a big difference between made and designed.
I can’t find a single Russian product in the US except vodka.
Maybe you should check guns.
Let’s see, according to Mike Spick in the Illustrated Directory of Fighters (illustrated because I like pictures :D), F-15s are credited with at 102.5 kills, only 36 of which are American, and no losses.
Again from from Spick, the Viper had 44 Israeli kills
Against MiG-29s and Su-27s? No? Oops. I’m sure MiG-23MFs with MiG-21 radars are a real test on their combat capabilities.
for no losses, 16 from the Pakistanis for no losses
Wow, so incredible, I wish I could be so lucky to shoot at strike fighters with no AAM and orders not to engage! :rolleyes: Those skilled Pak pilots! It’d be nice if you monkey models (to borrow a phrase) at the shallow end of the genetic spectrum remembered anything full-standard humans told you, but alas, it appears the axis of stupidity on this board will have to have it hammered into their head again. and again. and again.
and 2 from the Dutch for no losses.
In the middle of an allied effort against a **** ant country with how many fighters and how much money for training? :rolleyes:
All were Migs and Sukhois. Aha! They were not flown by a SuperPower against a sh1thole third world countries, Vympie. Though the 3rd world countries were furthur held back by sh1tty degraded Russian equipment.
Uh huh. I really don’t need to say anymore, your bullsh1t practically debunks itself.
Come on, Vympie, there are ample evidence (including the godawful combat record) that Russian equipment not only suck horribly to begin with but are made to suck even MORE by degrading.
Like?
If you insist on a source repeating a well known trait of Russian aircraft exports, let me quote from Spick’s book again, from the Mig-21 entry:
“A downgraded Mig-21PF, known as a ‘monkey variant,’ was produced for export. this was mig-21FL. it had the inferior R-2L radar . . . The FL was also licensed produced in India by HAL (which explains in part the endless crashes).
ROFLMAO. Dumbass ….
For some reason I highly doubt that “which expalins in part the endless crashes” is something he wrote instead of something that you wrote. Of course, the fact that the MiG-21s crashing are pushing 40 years old, and worse, bought uncertified scrap for spares (which resulted in scandal) has much more to do with it than your ridiculous assertion that “monkey model”=”crashes”.
Great evidence. Please, write more, the comedy writes itself. Go take a dip in the gene pool, you’re hemorraging brain cells.
The fact is, you fight like you train if you train like you fight- human factors have beaten technical factors repeatedly; and none of your ‘examples’ are worth sh1t.
VympelExcept in the most important category of all, which is having an actual flying over 250km missile, instead of a paper project that crying for funding.
Yakhont-M is a paper-project? Not according to the prototype at MAKS 2003. It hasn’t flown yet (2005), but the acceptance of the shipborne, full spec Russian version makes it a rather foregone conclusion.
Which is more likely to survive an SN-2 attack? (range 160km) Having AshMs that can at least fly 250km (C-803), or having AshMs that fly only 70km (Kh-31A)? Don’t give me Onix or Sunburn or Clubs—I’m talking of something you can actually lift and fly in a plane and shoot.
And which can fight off an enemy fighter of any kind? Not JH-7, that’s for sure. Which is more likely to strike the target? SM-2s were designed to blast Kh-22s and Bazalts, Granits- supersonic targets. The C-803 is subsonic Phalanx fodder, let alone SM-2. If I want to actually get near the vessel, and have a chance at killing it, rather than perhaps getting near it and just feeling good about shooting at it, I’ll take Kh-31As.
That is why, even as the PLAN orders SU-30MKKs, they’re still getting C-803s. It’s insurance if the stuff below would fail.
Fine by me.
I believe the general worldwide/Western perception of MiGs and Sukhois is that of being unreliable. The collective stories from Russia, Eastern Europea, India and China only seems to reinforce that impression.
Pure anecdote. I can cite many, concrete examples of entire fleets of Western aircraft being grounded just as easily, not to mention ridiculously bad MTBF for say, the F-15s AN/APG-63. That doens’t mean they’re unreliable aircraft.
Engines yes. But only for the time being. J-10’s use of a Russian engine is only temporary, and China is pushing to move their own engine in the J-11s (SU-27s).
Which is still just barely better than a first gen, 1970s tech AL-31F. Considering AL-31V, AL-41F, the latest RD-33 developments, this means very little.
Avionics—a clear no. The only planes with Russian avionics are the ones from Russia—and even then, the Chinese want to put their own avionics instead, such as their own radar on the J-11/SU-27.
But they didn’t, did they? That’s what I’m saying. Want and need, what you can do and what you want to do, are entirely different things, and desires are not reality.
Just about every Chinese plane has radar that were licensed or inspired from the West, with most suspicious Israeli help. Explain to me why J-8IIs and JH-7s got operational planar array radar units for example–the Zhuks were dropped off the list.
What does this have to do with “China is ahead of Russia”? N011M Bars. Nuff said.
If the Chinese are developing long range cruise missiles—and indeed they are—they’re not copying from the Russians but the West (Tomahawk).
Nothing to do with “China is ahead of Russia”. It is clearly not.
Again, that shows you what they think.
Which is not what I’m arguing against – that being the patently false assertion that China is ahead of Russia. It is not, and you’re only helping that along.
And why didnt they just buy the R-77 in large quantities instead? Obviously not. They saw the R-77, but apparently saw flaws in it but accepted it anyway since they don’t have any BVR alternatives. But they remained deeming the missile flawed enough to develop their local alternative.
Which is not what I’m arguing against – that being the patently false assertion that China is ahead of Russia. It is not.
(as an aside, this is purely your interpretation- it is not particularly amazing that China would try and make its own missiles or fighters, and if every country that tried to ‘go it alone’ was taken as an indication of the inferiority of the weapons they were buying, you would have various absurd suppositions being made about the quality of many weapons. Not to mention that there’s nothing particularly Chinese about the SD-10 at this point in time either. Then there’s RVV-AE-PD. Etc.)
The Chinese aren’t buying Russian attack helos either, despite repeated and fervent marketing attempts by Kamov and Mil. And they’re still developing their own. Their closest thing to an attack helicopter is a modification of a French design (WZ-9), not a Russian one. [/B]
Which is not what I’m arguing against – that being the patently false assertion that China is ahead of Russia. It is not.
VympelI ordered Tupolev Bombers direct from airtime. Wonder when I’ll get it.
VympelA succinct observation. This is why you cannot even buy a Russian flashlight in America. Simply unreliable.
Or, American flashlight manufacturers have their own market cornered.
Russia does make better cannon fodder for Western aircraft than any other third world country, though.
Maybe the cannon fodder are the pilots sitting in the planes, instead of the planes themselves.
For example, almost all of the F-16’s and F-15’s 300-0 record is recorded against unreliable Russian aircraft and equally unreliable Russian weapons.
Please provide concrete examples of ‘unreliability’. Your 300-0 figure is also pure baloney, but you know that. And of course, we all know that the best way to judge reliaiblity of aircraft is simply to compare kill ratios in ridiculously one-sided fights between third-world sh1tholes and the global superpower- never mind that without reports of radars breaking in the middle of a dogfight, or something to that effect, reliability has nothing to do with who’s going to win the fight.
And not only are they distinctly inferior, they are downgraded or “monkeyized” for even worse performance and reliablity!
More assertion. Do you have anything concrete to bring to the table, or just unproven assertions without evidence.
VympelOriginally posted by PRC4eva
I don’t see why the PLAN wants the Su-30MK2 since it already have fighter bomber made for maritime strike (FBC-1). Only thing good about it is that it is cheap and made fast, but Russian things is unreliable and China already caught up to Russian technology, the FBC-1 is good enough.
Biggest load of ignorant crap I’ve ever read, sorry to say.
Firstly, the ‘FBC-1’ sucks arse. Second, it is a vastly inferior aircraft in all relevant maritime strike departments to the Su-30MK2. Third, the Su-30MK2 is not a cheap buy. These three facts combine to a rather straight-forward explanation for why China bought the Su-30MKK series- because they need it, and they can’t wait for another JH-7 that sucks less. Fourth, there is no evidence that the Su-30MK2 is ‘unreliable’. Fifth, if China has caught up to Russian technology, maybe you can explain the Russian origins of the major weapons, engines and avionics in the upcoming Chinese fighters? Or maybe the distinct Chinese lack of any strategic bombers equipped with long range cruise missiles? Or perhaps the lack of any appreciable long range air-to-air missiles with Chinese origins (sorry, the SD-10 is filled with Russian gear). Where are the Chinese attack helicopters? I can go on, and on, and on. Check yourself next time you get the urge to spew nonsense all over an aviation forum.
VympelI really think it’d be best that they just release official, high quality, 1024×768 pictures in a cohesive format on an official website. It’s not like it’ll compromise anything; look at the photos of the F-22 that have been floating around since the very first YF-22 was revealed. The secrecy is absurd, and the pathetic quality photoshops that charlatans release again and again gets ony my nerves even more.
I don’t want to have to put up with this crap when the PAK FA does it’s first taxi near the end of the decade either.
VympelIs this a gravity bomb or a missile?
VympelI can see them. It’s an interesting exercise in similarity of design features, which is to be expected considering how many jet fighters have been made and what you’re trying to get out of the design. Though I think in the case of both the Teja and Thunder pictures, they’ve got the rudders completely wrong.
Sign In
