It may be because, unlike the F-15E, F/A-18E and Su-30MK it is unable to fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

Respectfully Trident but why do you draw that conclusion? Is there any hard evidence that it is “unable to fight its way out of a wet paper bag”.

Looking at what is installed on and carried by the latest JH-7A variant I am hard pressed to see how it would fair particularly badly operating as a part of a mixed strike package. The F-15E and F/A-18E have both performed well in combat but that is partially due to force enablers like dedicated jammers and AWACS. I can’t really comment on the Su-30MK but in respect of China they are busy inducting all the force multipliers and enablers that we are familiar with in the West.

We agree that like the Tornado it will perform its primary naval and land penetration strike capability perfectly well so as far as I see its good money spent by China.

Thank you Fed, for putting in a good word for JH-7 🙂

In its latest config I have read somewhere it has about the 80% rangxpayload performance as Su-30MKK. for a fraction of cost.

In JH-7 They are not really looking out for a platform that can flight its way out of anything. as madrat mentioned its more in the mode of a A-6/Tornado/Fencer. Su-30MKK is their F-15E, and F/A-18E/F, well, let;s not even go there less we get into another debate on super hornet’s range, or the lack of thereof.

airframe is not stressed for high-g as Su-30MKKs. so its bit less dense.

as for PGMs it can carry most of anti-shipping and anti-rad missiles, plus the ubiquitous KD-88 (seems like PLA is standarizing on KD-88 now as their primary standoff munition)
also has an dedicated jammer version.

On paper China has 100 Su-30MK. Unless newer PGMs are integrated with these Su-30s. They are using 20 year old missiles.
Maybe 200 JH-7 to be generous. but JH-7 cannot carry 11 tons of internal fuel like Su-24. so combat value of JH-7 as bomber is questionable unless there is fleet of air refuellers supporting it.
Ruaf have combined force of Su-24M/Su-27SM/MIG-29SMT. look at Tactical corporation financial. much more PGM are entering Ruaf.
There is nothing like Su-34/Su-35 entering PLAAF service for next 10 years. so that Strike fighter gap is only going to increase.

Rumour has it that a tactical FB regiment in an exercise last year dropped more PGMs than the entire stock of a Russian Military region. pure rumor.

PLAAF first brought 30MKKs in 2000, so what’ that 20 year old missile come from?
They also had good relations with those russian design bureaus that makes those munitions. Pretty sure they have kept it up to date for things that they need.

more fuel =/= rangexload. there is drag and sfc.

i.e:

S-300s and FC-1s are cool, but Serbia wants to join the alliance that bombed them and your embassy. F-4s are already NATO compatable.

So why the hell do they need an airforce.

just use the money to bribe 24 US Senators.

The Chinese would not bother cooperating with anyone if they were able to pull that project by themselves.

Schedule. my friend! schedule!

Schedule/Performance/Cost.

In other words, money ;).

http://www.ria.ru/defense_safety/20111011/455986530.html

Rostvertol delivered a batch of 6 Mi-28Ns on October 8th.

If some one give you a million dollars a year, for 10 years.
vs if some one give you 5 million dollars dollar at first but **** around and wouldn’t stick around give you 5 more million $ until 10 year later.
is it the same thing?

How the hell does a thread about PLAAF worked into a number contest on Russian Population growth!?? :confused:

some body need to stop this non-sense.

===

recognition of an inflection in the traditional trend on chinese aerospace industry’s reliance on key russian suppliers,
does not nullify the fact that russia still has a significant and growing aerospace industrial base. and vise-versa.

anything else is generalization to the nth degree.

PLAAF would love if russia can reliabily provide them with airlifters and jet engines…one extra source thus one extra layer of supplier security. the fears are precisely in the scenario where russia can’t or unwilling.

inversely, russian armed forces prob would be happier if chinese electronics or commercial ship building industry can breath some life into the respective Russian indudstries and thus grow their domestic industrial base.

Yes, it is absolutely amazing to see what FCC’s can do with such stubby little wings, given enough movable control surfaces and some good software. It’s amazing to hear older guys talk about flying things like the Phantom and Tomcat…..the things we can do in this jet would have gotten those guys killed or in a parachute in seconds. One of my more memorable experiences was being bullseye nose high, 48 kts indicated (lowest reading on the a/s indicator), one motor full blower, one at idle, and basically just making a full circle throw of the stick to all 4 corners, with full rudder into the idle motor side…….all the thing did was flop around, and I gently fell backwards through a cloud of unburnt fuel. Nothing more than a couple mild swings of the nose after we swapped ends, before it started flying again. I don’t think anyone could do that without fully departing in any of our previous/legacy fighters….

Those people who designed those control laws are pretty amazing isn;t it? 😎

I have been around on flight tests where the KIAS was around XX, cockpit is all sky, and nose pointed high, column pulled all the way back. and ground speed was way less than XX because they are going in a head wind. they held back the full column for minutes, just rode phugoid. before they decided its enough and pushed throttup to speed up. and the pilots couldn’t help but murmuring “its amazing”.

all this in an 100,000 lb class transport airplane that was designed to touch the sonic barrier on the other end of flight envelope. No Slats, No highlift flaps system, all on Flight controls and you are .5 degs away from a nasty tip stall.

I always wonder why they are not more into the J 10, so far they have plans to have more FC-1 than J 10, may be the co-development (hahaha) comes into play but other than that a PAF fleet of J-10/FC-1 in equal proportion would be far more formidable.

because from very beginning J-10’s were designated to use as much domestic technology as possible. to both incubate the technology and the design team. which is wonderful if you want to get your technology in shape, nightmare in terms of schedule risk. PAF don’t want schedule risk.
PLAAF can afford to gamble, (worst comes worst they go to Shenyang and build more 27SKs), PAF can’t.

by 98 it was pretty clear J-10 would work. FC-1 came into maturity rather late after J-10 was well on its way finishing up the intial flight test program and into service.PaF finally pluck down the cash (98-99) only after dittering around 10 years… and 4 years later out pops the airplane. Back when it all started PAF always wants a plane designed around their requirements. which was basicalyl a Mig-21 class light fighter that has wonderful characteristics and modern western avionics. that they can build in Karma. J-10 does not fit the bill.

btw, the guy who is chief engineer on FC-1 at Chengdu was also the lead on the flight control law for J-10. J-10 project was his “graduation”. his first independe job was FC-1 and J-10S (two seater), two at same time. a wonderful workaholic. He is in charge of J-20 this time.