crobatoAAM-3 isn’t that new. The specs are roughly similar to the TK-1’s. What’s unique about it is the sawtooth fins used for front control surfaces, which is also used in the AIM-9X…and used in the PL-12/SD-10. The idea is that sawtoothing reduces the effort you need to turn the surface at high speeds.
F-2 currently has no plans to upgrade to the AAM-4 and XAAM-5. The upgrades are focused on the F-15Js now.
J-10 will turn things up a notch when TVC is added to the plane, along with a more powerful engine. TVC + active delta canard configuration, and you’re looking at “super maneuverability”, which is the phrase coined by the X-31 project that tested such a configuration. It may reach to the point only the JSF can match it.
I quite agree with the assesement on the ROCAF Block 20 F-16s. The plane is based on the lighter Block 15OCW airframe, which is more of a “dogfighter” airframe than the current F-16Cs. The Block 20 probably might have better acceleration and immediete climbs, but the J-10 is more negatively unstable, and along with the canards, so it instantly turns quicker, has a better L/D ratio, still lower wing loading, better high AoA, so it may turn tighter. Add the HMS, and you’re done.
Mirage 2000-5 would be more interesting though. Has low wing loading and great instantaneous turn rates. But sustained turn rates is the weakness of planes like these, I think it goes like Block 20 > J-10 > Mirage 2000-5. Great BVR matchup though, it can engage 4 targets while the Block 20, the MKK, the IDF can only engage 2. I don’t know how many targets the improved IDF-2 can simultaneously engage. J-10 is also unknown, though it’s believed to be 2 or 4. But Matra Magic 2 isn’t going to hold a candle to the J-10 with HMS+PL-8 improved.
Basically the drift is the same theme; the PLAAF has the largest inventory of planes with HMS (do note that HMS also allows you to use radar guided missiles like PL-11, PL-12, R-77, R-27 outside of your HUD’s point of view, so it’s not just an IR missile enhancement) and without some HMS of your own, you’re in a disadvantage in close combat. Even though the SD-10 is quite agile for a BVRAAM, you still have the best chances by keeping the PLAAF fighters at arms length.
Talking about DACT, I think the FC-1 has great potential for such to be used as aggressors for the PLAAF.
crobatoWhen it comes to payload, range and speed, I would go for the J-10.
J-10 also has better growth potential, allowing you to stuff more powerful engines, radar, avionics, later on.
When it comes to maneuverbility, I would say the J-10 at high altitudes, but low to medium altitudes, it would be too close to call. The IDF can turn no doubt about that.
PL-12 vs. TC-2, hmm can’t really see that much of a difference here. Don’t know how both seekers should perform, but I think the PL-12 has a slight advantage when it comes to kinetic and flight performance, and the PL-12 when it comes to maneuverability. With 40G turns, it’s even more maneuverable than your AIM-9L or Python 3 or PL-8 (up to 35G).
Big advantage for the J-10 for having HMS, and I regard the newer versions of the PL-8 to be better than the TC-1 heaters used on the F-CK-1. The IDF needs AIM-9X.
The IDF owns the J-10 over avionics, starting with the AIFF system for the IDF-2 (the bird slicers are part of it) and Link-16.
The IDF has advantage in integration with AGM/ASM, with the TC-2A ARM, the AGM-65 Maverick and the HF-2 ASM.
Overall, the problems and gaps in the J-10 are much more easier to overcome compared to the fundamental limitations of the IDF.
crobatoOne thing of note is that the IDF2 has the bird slicer IFFs that are seen on the Block 20 F-16s. I have a hard time seeing other changes besides the shape of the canopy.
crobatoThat’s not a rumor. The ROC was seriously thinking of obtaining 66 Block 52+ F-16s. That’s the variant that was recently delivered to Greece and Poland.
The problem is that the Bush admininstration isn’t very happy with the CSB administration, and questions the sincerity. The Bush admin wants something done on the previous shopping list before they would look at the F-16s. Two of the items in that list, the 6 SSKs and the 13 P3 Orions were never followed up.
The other problem is that even if the ROC ordered the F-16s, they can see no less than 2011 and 2012 before they were delivered. That sucks for them because no way you can see what the PLAAF will be by 2011-2012. By then the Block 52+ F-16s won’t be sounding very advanced either.
crobatoThen how do you think the FCK-1/2 compares to the PLAAF’s J-8H? Superior or comparable?
They’re very different fighters. The late model J-8II is a very fast plane,and considering its design vintage, has a TWR that even exceeds the F-CK-1. But like the Starfighter which I think the plane comes closest conceptually, the plane is a hit and run fighter, and no way it stays around for a dogfight. Remember this plane isn’t that maneuverable, I would compare that ability to those of sixties delta winged fighters like Mirage IIIs and Delta Darts. So long it keeps playing this game, it’s hard to catch.
When the J-8I and J-8II was first introduced, it gave the ROCAF planners nightmares because the F-5s had little chance of catching them. Hence why the ROCAF needed F-16s.
The F-CK-1/2 instead is meant to deal with the hordes of J-7 and J-6 fighters. However that vision is obsolete the moment the PLAAF acquired the Su-27s. As a fighter the Ching Kuos are very maneuverable. Think of it like the YF-17, before it mutated into the F-18. The two engines, although each is small, actually gives a slightly better thrust than the recent FC-1 for about the same empty weight. The catch is that two small turbofans can eat more gas than a single large turbofan, hence its not really their speed that sucks, but their range.
I must add that the ROCAF has not publicly disclosed or admitted if they were tweaking those engines. I gather there is some potential in that.
Make no mistake about it, the Ching Kuos are very maneuverable planes. According to the ROCAF, they turn tighter than the F-5s which is no mean feat, and can still outaccelerate a Starfighter. But I suspect this maneuverability comes at the expense of an airframe that suffers from drag in higher speeds (same problem with the YF-17 and F-18s) and the F-CK-1 cannot catch up to a J-8II when they go supersonic.
The original Ching Kuos are armed with the GD-53 radar which is based on the APG-67 used on the F-20. The ROCAF wanted to buy the F-20 first but when it was denied, that was the impetus that started the IDF program. Anyway, the radar has a search nearly 150km, and can track and engage two targets at 67km. I don’t know if this has been upgraded to four with this new version.
There was some talk that the TC-2 ARH missiles, which uses a Motorola developed seeker that is actually even more sensitive than the one in the AIM-120, is limited to 200 once the supply of seekers ran out. But then again, the Taiwanese are excellent copycats backed by one of the most capable electronics industries in the world, so I would think the Taiwanese would be more than capable to remedy that deficiency.
I would think that the F-CK-1/2 is much more directly comparible to the FC-1. Both are similar in their aerodynamics, planform, weight, radar sizes, payloads, and engine power. Both are almost identical in their mission statement. There is no clear advantage between one or the other, and it’s going to come down to pilot skill, situation, luck and tactics.
crobatoYeah I like to see those covers removed. Remember the 051Cs also had me confused for a while because they had somethings that were covered and suggestively from a distance they looked like Orekhs, but when the covers were removed, they were not.
On the model, they look like Orekhs to me though, and Almaz has gone on the record trying to make a big sale of the VLS Shtil-1 to China, so my instincts to tell me it should be VLS Shtil-1.
crobatoCan’t be sure. The Chinese Sea Eagle radar looks like Top Plate from a distance, and anything can be put under a bulb. Need confirmation on the SAM, and I mean a photo if and when they’re loaded to the ship.
The licensed AK-630s used in the earlier ships are now replaced by the Type 730 CIWS.
crobatoNice piece of information. Thank you.
Was thinking this may have happened but needed some affirmation.
crobatoIt would depend on things like altitude and the speed of a launching aircraft. Nonetheless, I can say the same things with a lot of other missiles too. Nonetheless, I don’t see a useful kill probability above 40km, lofted or not, for any medium sized BVRAAM _put_name_here_.
crobatoFC-1 actually has better range than the J-8II, once the planes are tanked, thanks to using turbofan and a better lift/drag ratio. The J-8II is still faster though, best for high altitude, high speed hit and dash attacks.
But the J-8II is based on a concept whose time has come and passed. There is no conceptual successor to this. The regiments flying the older J-8IIs will end up being upgraded with J-11s and J-10s, while the newer J-8II variants will be upgraded (ongoing process now) and kept for some years to come.
Does not make logistical sense for the PLAAF to keep carrying too many plane types. They should cut down on the number of types being flown even if these types are still viable. This is for the sake of efficiency. The PLAAF should not be doing Su-30/J-11/J-10/FC-1/JH-7/J-8II/J-7. That’s too much stuff, and that’s stupid. Its an operational and a logistical nightmare. Any airforce that keeps way too much types beyond two needs to have its brains checked. Although a lot of things are done and can’t be changed no more, the ideal mix should have just stayed J-11/J-10. Regardless how well the FC-1 and other platforms beyond that mix performs. But weapons procurement isn’t always based on the ideal and the rational, but often on the political.
crobatoI got a photo of a PLAAF flighter certificate. The pilot incurred a milestone of 800 hours by December 2000 and reached a second milestone 1500 hours by October of 2004. That amounts to over 180 hours a year.
PLAAF pilots train basically A-A missions in mind, but they also have a strong A-G mission background requirement, such as flying low to attack bases. However the A-G training is still old school, ala dive bombing, low level bombing, rocket strafing etc,. There seems to be no lack of flying MLRS displays in the PLAAF. Every fighter and every pilot at least knows how to dive bomb or do flying MLRS, even the J-8IIs that were supposedly meant for high altitude interception. None of the fancy PGM stuff, at least not yet anyway, unless you’re in one of the Su-30, latest Q-5 versions or JH-7 groups that are so equipped.
crobatoSometimes my brain turns to mush, I mean F-15J.
Unless there is a massive improvement in solid propellant or increase in missile length I don’t expect any AIM-7M to reach 100km in terms of usable range. I could give the same argument to the R-27 and R-77. Ranges stated are often balllistic—the missile may physically achieve the distance but it does not mean they can kill a plane with it. Usually improvements lie in the area of electronics, one that may improve for example, the seeker range. Usable and I mean ranges with high probability of kill is often much lower, 40km at the most, and I hold that for all AAMs, unless you’re one of those large missiles like the Phoenix going after a Bear. In any case, regardless when the AIM-7M was made, much of the development efforts would have been focused on ARH AAMs to begin with, leaving the AIM-7M frozen with only electronic updates and refinements to come by.
crobatoIt makes sense some way, the A-A radar installed in mind and being cheaper than the J-11.
But still very expensive, when I compare the FC-1 with that. The FC-1 looks much more of an ideal replacement for the J-7, related to capabilities and costs?!
In terms of cost/performance the FC-1 seems more ideal as a replacement for the J-7 but I’m not sure if the PLAAF intends to replace the J-7 in the role sense. At least not beyond the potential 100 or so planes that may be procured as a favor to AVIC, and in that sense, that’s more of a political/marketing buy than one formed from your original doctrinal requirements.
There don’t seem to be a “light fighter mafia” within the PLAAF and the trend appears to be solidified towards bigger fighters—J-11, J-10, JH-7 and J-8II. The two J-XX concept programs appear to be two engined, clearly marking this trend. The follow on for the J-10 (after successive variants) looks like a two engined delta canard. For that reason we don’t see a direct Q-5 replacement either and what I mean being a successor plane in the same size and weight category. It is theorized that the FC-1 may also serve as the Q-5 replacement, but that is not what the PLAAF’s original intentions, although what they do with the plane after the FC-1 is certified may be another matter. The FC-1 is an uninvited outsider trying to prove itself into the party, that’s how I see how the plane stands. As for the proving, we will see in the months ahead.
crobatoI can not see reverse engineering from China for years, because China had signed international laws related to copy-right.
The way you look at it and tracking the progress through interlinking the infos comes close to reality. Congratulations, excellent work.
Thanks.
Another thing in observation is that the J-10 regiments so far are converted from J-7 regiments, not Q-5. That alone can tell you that primarily, at least originally, the J-10 has an air to air purpose in mind.
BTW, if anyone has wind tunnel access, it would be interesting to make a mockup of a J-10 and run that into the tunnel. That way you can find out L/D ratios and that can give you heads up in estimating the J-10’s performance.
crobatoAnd we can’t and don’t care. So China is a threat to nK, so what? Sens is right insofar as that economics and defense are intertwined in that region. The continued economic interaction between the US and the PRC pretty much ensures that we’ll never go to war with one another and within the next two decades will probably have pretty damn good relations with each other to boot. Sounds good to me, I’d love to be able to go to China and just travel around and see what there is to see over there. Plus Szechuan (did I spell that right?) food is awesome.
To be truthful, China is the real key to the peace and stability of the world community. If China and India were to set aside their differences and learn to coexist, we could all make some real progress towards a joint resolution of the last serious problem in the world: militant Islam. All it takes is for China and India to sit down over some curry and Tsing Tao and we’re in business.
China and India doesn’t have fundamental problems with each other, and the differences they have on some land issues can be negotiated, but even then that’s never a problem in developing other areas of China-India relationship.
China-Japan is the other issue but they’re fighting over symbols like the Yasukuni shrine. The new PM, Shintaro Abe, mentioned a few words him not going to the shrine, and suddenly China, the SK and Japan became chummy again. Which is good because its going to help with dealing with the NK issue.
Since humanitarian conditions are so bad, why isn’t the rest of the UN clamoring for aid to be sent to nK
Welll they should but a lot of the times the aid ends up being used to fed the NK army instead. Have you ever noticed how thin and malnourished looking some NK soldiers look?
The US is certainly alarmed but the word from Rice is clear, they’re not going to war over this at least not yet anyway. China though seems livid because its a major slap in the face. and the Chinese mainstream thinks Kim is a loony next door with a big bomb. Some Chinese forumites are suggesting going as far as invading.
Nonetheless, currently it looks like China is going to impose sanctions. How serious, let us see.
Sign In
