crobatoWhat are they using for BVR weapons?
crobatoAre you serious, dj? Thought you should know better than that.
Doing all this stuff voids a warranty contract worth tens of millions of dollars per plane. Also you can’t do all the modification stuff without detailed priveleged information on every nook and cranny on the plane, information which LM could only provide from blueprints and experienced personnel acting as advisers.
crobatoThe Schlem, is good, but not the end all and be all. The Schlem is good for WVR, but what about BVR?
From the way the manual looks, anything targeted that is displayed outside of the HUD, BVR or WVR mode, R-73, R-27 or R-77, can be displayed by the Schlem.
crobatogreat pic of the 051C. It must be quite recent as the tarps are removed and electronics suit are installed.
it seems to me that Band Stand has become almost standard radar on new build chinese destroyers. They must really be impressed by the Sovremennys…
On a side note… are the chinese YJ series of ASM are compatible with the Band Stand radar if they are to be guided by it? or are the guidence handled by something else?
It looks more like a copy or inspiration of Bandstand than a real Bandstand. I do have to add that this Bandstand like radar isn’t the only Chinese naval radar that can guide a YJ-8X missile. It may not look like Bandstand underneath after all, the only thing that resembles the Bandstand is the radome.
As for the VLS in front of the ship, I think it’s more S-300 cannisters.
crobatoHiya guys
form CDF: whats in the cockpit?
These pilots are wearing the “bumpy” helmets with the neck motion based sensors used for HMS. This is the first time I’ve seen them on an actual pilot and operational plane.
crobatoThe shoulder winged planes powered by Rolls Royce engines—Tornado, Jaguar, JH-7—seem to have similarities around the engine intake. all being smaller and squarish, instead of being completely lateral with the fuselage, like the MiG-23. JH-7 was originally designed as a VG aircraft, but cost and complexity issues turned that into a fixed wing plane. The JH-7 can carry BVRAAMs like PL-12 but essentially that is for self defense. Athough agile, the plane lacks the essential thrust to weight ratio needed for it to go mano o mano with lighter fighters.
The Cold War environment which fighters like the Tornado are born made Soviet tank formations the greatest threat. Air superiority is useless if your ground bases got runned over the Soviet tanks.
crobatoLet’s not forget that any country that is willing to introduce its own 5th gen design at all surely is advanced and rich enough to use something better than plywood.. And you do not need to care about details more than Northrop engineers did.. External shape, placement and shape of slopes, inlets, ducts, intakes, landing gear wells, everything already at hand. Quite a lot, IMHO..
Building a plane out of plywood is quite stealthy as a matter of fact.
crobatoI don’t really think the JH-7, Su-24 or MiG-23 was influenced by the Tornado. These and other planes spontaneously arise from a design trend that started in the mid to late sixties. The trend starter appeared to be the F-111, which at that time, was being hyped as the next great fighter before John Boyd’s theories shot it down.
crobatoNo, that’s “K”, like K-33. I have no idea where KS came from.
Just like the sale of Kh-55s to Iran and China was announced to the UN, right?
Eventually all exports do catch up no matter what, register or not. And since you have read about it, that shows how the media do eventually catch up. By the way, that’s the Ukrainians, not the Russians. The Russians have so far appear to go by the book, documenting, for example, their latest engine deliveries. If anything they have appeared to improve on their coverage compared to five years ago.
The key question is, would anyone happen to have any proof that China ordered and Russia delivered MKKs after 2004? Secretly or otherwise? A large plane sale worth over billion dollars is impossible to publicly hide. Sukhoi had already made its sales figures public. There is no new MKK regiment formed after 2004. That too is both reportable and observable, and the PLAAF has never made MKK deployment a secret, posting these deployments in their official journal. No indication from SIPRI, Janes, Interfax, whatsoever of any new deliveries. Attempts to market a new Su-30 sale via the last Sino-Russian exercise, which was more of a live fire display of Russian arms inventory for sale, failed to produce any results, other than the purchase of 38 IL-76/78 transports, which we can expect that a few would end up being modified as KJ-2000 AWACs.
crobatoThe manufacturing part can eventually catch up in years time. However by the time you do, it’s better to have a design ready to justify it.
As a Chinese saying goes, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one small step. It’s no use arguing if you can or cannot do it. Like that Nike ad goes, just do it.
crobatoSorry- but your statements & behaviour speak for themselves as to the validity of the above observation
The statement was about the fanatics who raise up irrelevant bilge over a mere factual comparison of the types- you proceeded to do exactly that
In other words, you perpetuated the stereotype, having played a role in creating it.
Even now, the fact that you are still around, thirsting for a fight, indicates the validity of the statement & no amount of expletives can change that POV
What can change it is your own continued behaviour on this board, but I doubt whether you will be able to.
The only fanatic here is you. Take a look at the mirror and on the past statements. Oh, and PLA watchers don’t look on the MKK too highly. The plane is just a step towards other things.
Thank you for all that irrelevant speculation and useless hyperbole. The statement about the KH-31 was in reference to your behaviour on the KH-31 thread wrt Indian Flankers, and you were proven wrong, but not before you went through this whole rigmarole of posturing and name calling, as is usual with you on this board and many others
Proven wrong? You only produced a picture circa April 2006. That’s years after I asked for certain evidence of delivery. Eventually everything does get recieved, but the fact is, back in 2003-2004, there was none.
As regards the rest of yada yada & whatever speculation you come up with , you are not in PLAAF procurement for your words to be the GHoly Grail.
Lol. I am not in the PLAAF procurement but everyone can see what the PLAAF is procuring or not. Cut your BS—the PLAAF is no longer procuring Su-30s and every recent evidence points to this.
Face it man- you are just another armchair internet enthusiast like most on this board or even elsewhere, being “aggressive” and “fighting” about on internet boards does not make you infallible or a “guru” who has to be listened to, nor does your insane patriotism for some radar etc
Lol. This is funny from someone who inaccurately described a basic BVR engagement and has no clue about basic armstrade and its rules.
Clean up your act or get used to being ignored, because that is the one way most people deal with you, as you persist with more attacks
Lol. Look at who is attacking and who is unable to answer the questions and issues posted.
Your behaviour is simply too obnoxious to condone. Period. And perhaps you should look at your own antics before doing the entire attack dog rigmarole.
Responding to you in the same manner would be all too easy, but I have no time to waste with you, given that your ego prevents you from doing anything without being obnoxious
And yet you persist on being obnoxious yourself.
So move on
Even now, in an amazing display of passive -agrressive behaviour, you continue to persist at an issue where I am least interested in your armchair marshal opinions or claims
Yet you loudly insist that you are right and that they must be debated and sanctified!Your ego is unable to let you leave- and in turn your behaviour is more and more obnoxious.
Ridiculous!
Seems to me you are the one with a lot of ridiculous arguments how BVR is fought, about triplane and canard issues, about RCS etc,.
I continue to be shocked, your dishonesty knows no bounds. Earlier on- I had mentioned exactly what was the case and what the Russians were proposing a variety of options and that it was upto the IAF to approve. entirely because they had to in an era of competition and now of course, we have you to tell us about it. .
Proposals and options don’t make reality, which you already seem to be hedging on. This is the year 2006, not 1996. Four more years toward 2010. Options and proposals takes years and years to fulfill. Somehow, extreme makeovers of 30 year old platforms post 2010 do not seem to excite.
Your continued attempts to put words in my mouth and also to use childish insults to whilst doing so is sickening. PLease peddle your propoganda elsewhere and have others buy it, rather than attempting to teach someone their first language, when they, unlike you have maintained a consistent stand from the beginning despite your utterly despicable attempts to twist their words
Listen to your own advice.
crobatoWe all know that China and Russia jumped right into development of 5th Gen aircraft, be is J-XX (J-14) or PAK-FA. The first reaction is that those aircraft won’t be as stealthy as F-22 is today..
My question is – why don’t they simply externally copy the shape of YF-23? The thing was said to outperform the YF-22 in terms of stealthiness, that would mean it must be at least +/- comparable to F-22A. Would not it be a logical thing to do rather than spend thousands of days developing something that you can copy in three months?
As far as I know, J-XX or J-14 hasn’t been solidified yet. Don’t think the final model will be like an F-22 however. It would probably much more akin to the F-35, with DSI engine inlets shaped along the sides like a V, formed to create strakes at the same time, and then with canards behind it. This is based on some research papers published in Beidou university.
crobatoLike all the KLJ, SLH, blah blah nonsense you keep peddling on the Chinese thread?
This is what so ironic- your own inability to practise what you preach
You have been proven wrong before – insthe KH-31 issue where you made similarly half baked claims and then resorted to vicious personalizations early on? Yet you persist with this egotistical behaviour
Move on. It is entirely your inability to converse without resorting to ad hominem attacks that ensures that one is least interested in even attempting the same with you
Yet you persist
And you go on drawing first blood calling MKK fanatics or making jabs on people who are actually making progress rather than blowing air.
You know what? It’s so funny. You have to rely on a lot of foreign agreements just to get things off the ground and yet unable to produce some real beef. Perhaps your real beef is advancements like China’s KLJ radars, when you have trouble on your own. Understand this, since you don’t own follow the armstrade, China is indeed equipping their own planes with their own radars. and this is indicated by the lack of visible foreign orders—and yes the Russians would make it public if China did procure radars, not to mention the radars already being offered to the Pakistani government and other foreign buyers with export fighters. As for the Kh-31, China indeed does have a copy, proven in photographs and defense expo displays for their domestic planes, along with imported Kh-31s for their MKKs. The concern and political blocks executed by the US government against Israel upgrading the Harpies China has bought is tied to this YJ-91 project.
Your ‘move on, move on” tactics indicate inability to reason. You have not shown a reasonable scenario with regards to your ‘equivalent fighters’, and you were quite unhappy when I politely pointed to you out that that is not the way the game is played. Frankly, you need to learn your own lesson.
Chna hasn’t ordered more Su-30s for good reason, and is no longer planning to do so in the near future. This activity is indeed documentable. Ask the Russians. Go check with Jane’s. Check SIPRI.
As for various radas being proposed for MiG-35, it’s not the question whether MiG approves the radars or not. Since it is proposed, being proposed does not mean it has already been approved. Maybe you need to read the Dictionary to find out what “proposed” and what “approved” really means. Proposals are dime a dozen. In the end, only a tiny fraction ever makes it to the finish line. Perhaps this last sentence is a major revelation for you.
A Frankenstein approach to design also means layering the execution of the project with paperwork, concessions, deal making, and politics, one after another. This is why Frankensteins either take a very long time of fruition, or they remain where they are, in a piece of paper.
And frankly, I do think your computation of RCS range is wrong.
crobatoMy my touchy touchy & how predictable!
Did anyone make the strawman blather you are so busily intent on demolishing?
Hardly !
But here you are- with all your Bullgas and similar gas!
The point was simple- Russia no longer has the liberty to pass of highly downgraded models in a competitive export environment for a country which is NOT its neighbour.
Look who is BSing here.
The reason why the Russians offer certain “models” is because their own government won’t finance them and so they’re looking for some other development money.
And there are a dozen procurement examples for India itself.
Now you may hem and haw in anger, but the truth is the truth!
And how do I know this?
Because unfortunately or fortunately the IAF is very public about its mixing and matching and the Russians are rather keen to oblige, since it helps their overall export effort!
And somehow the Frankenstein approach makes thing better?
So much for that strawman.
But if it makes you feel better to think the reverse, kindly do so.
Really?
=============================
RUSSIA THREATENS TO RETAIN BrahMos SOURCE CODE
By Bulbul Singh
10 Oct 05. Russia has threatened that it will not give away the source code which will enable the supersonic Cruise missile BrahMos to be mounted on foreign made platforms, including the recently contracted French Scorpene or the Multirole Medium Range Combat Aircraft (MMRCA)which India is buying from the global market.
Sources in the Indian defense ministry say, Moscow has made it known to the Indian defense planners that there is no guarantee that it will allow India to mount the BrahMos cruise missile on third country platforms until the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)dispute is settled.
Sources in the Indian defense ministry however say it is part of Moscow’s pressure in the run up to the MMRCA procurement program of the Indian government.
India is on a global hunt for a contract worth $5bn for the procurement of 126 MMRCA for the Indian Air Force into which Russia has also fielded its MiG 29 SMT aircraft. The other contenders are Dassault of France with the Mirage 2000-5; Saab of Sweden with the Gripen; Lockheed Martin of United States with the F-16 and Boeing of United States with the F-18.
An executive of the Rosoboronoexport of Russia based in New Delhi however said, Russia is perturbed over the delay in the settlement of the IPR issue adding that it is not possible for Russia to contribute hi-tech technologies to India without much return.
The BrahMos anti-ship supersonic cruise missile is a joint development effort of India and Russia in which India’s defense research agency, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO)is contracted with NPOM of the Russian Federation.
The BrahMos, which is being introduced into the Indian Navy, is a 300 kilometers range supersonic anti ship cruise missile and the land and sea versions of the Cruise missiles are also being tested. The missile is one of the most potent precision guided weapons developed for the Indian armed forces in recent.
However Russia now insists that the BrahMos export, and other technological aspects including the source code, should be linked to the solving of the IPR issue which has held back further research and development between India and Russia. In fact there has been no signing of any defense contract between India and Russia since the United Progressive Alliance government came to power in May 2004.
Russia has held back the lease of a nuclear submarine, the TU-22 Backfire bomber capable of delivery nuclear weapons, and various other weapons and equipment under negotiations between India and Russia for several years.
The sticky parts of the IPR issue are the supply of spares from Russia for even erstwhile USSR-made weaponry currently with the Indian defense forces. The other issue is the up-grading of the Russian made systems by a third country. India is contemplating the upgrade of a large chunk of its USSR weapons and equipment with Western technology, a move that is not to the liking of the Russians. It is estimated that the upgrade market alone of aging USSR weapons with the Indian defense forces is around $10 to $15bn.
“The threat of Russia now allowing mounting of the BrahMos cruise missile on a third country platform is only an arms twisting policy to which Moscow often resorts,” said an Indian Army official.
However an Indian Air Force official admitted that the acquisition of BrahMos could be linked to the sale of the MIG 29SMT by the Russians.
The Mirage 2000-5 of France is the most favored aircraft within the Indian Air Force for the MMRCA. The procurement of MMRCA will however be a political decision.
=======================
Meanwhile, let us look in the context that statement was made, that is: if an equivalent technology is unavailable from the Russian side, either due to monkeying around or whether current levels are too low, the original manufacturers are all too eager to involve others, to make up for this perceived disadvantage:
Let us look at an example-
They are willing to integrate Europeans PGMs to their radars, but not the other way around.
The point will be, will the Europeans oblige?
Fydorov of course, being the head of Irkut who led the MKI program.
And also, RAC MiG is pushing Phazatron to come out with its own AESA
And if that is technology denial..
What a laugh. Not only is the project half baked, it has not even begun to bake yet. It is in an experimental technology proving stage yet. This is going to take several years and a lot of bucks before it is even done. This is what in arms trade is called bait. This is like saying you will fork over the money to finish something that is not, money that could have been used for domestic developments.
(RCS1/RCS2)^.25 * RCS2’s Original range= new range, gave me the figures I posted before
Huh? Where did you come up with this?
Given that you are no fighter pilot, much less a designer, I will pass on your munificence and generosity of spirit, as well as your bombast.
Given your statements about radars and missiles, I would certainly say you are no fighter pilot at all either. In fact, I don’t even think you have the slightest idea how even the basic things work. You want to repeat your statements again?
Now tell me for the third time, how your radar and missile tactics of “equivalent fighters” post really work?
In Indian reports, it has been designated as the R-172, the KS- was used entirely because of its common nomenclature and because a member earlier on in this thread preferred the KS. The above is cited in JMR (March 2004 & May 2004)
Ah yes. It’s still in negotiation, and somehow you treat it like it’s operational already.
Sure if you say so!
BTW since you are not with the PLAAF, you are welcome to your own theories and assumptions, and I’ll pass on them.
Lol, this has been confirmed by Chinese sources and by international armstrade. The MKK has not been procured since 2003. Go check with the Russians. Go check with all sources.
Kindly move on. It is but evident that the MKK is peerless & that China shall rule the world and you know everything there is to know about Chinas procurement, more than the PLAAF itself. Happy?
Cheers!
Yes, I do know much about China’s procurement, ORBAT, and a lot of stuff. Not all, but enough. Seems to me you are naive about armstrade. The fact is, arms sales have to be registered with the UN and made public according to international arms treaty and UN requirements. You will know if something is sold or not. Seems to me, you don’t even know how basic things work in international armstrade.
crobatoA J-8. Look at the size of the thing.
It’s a J-8I, no doubt updated to the -E version. Still operational with the PLAAF 24th Division.
Note on the background you see J-7C/D. Has the surviving J-7C/D moved from the 29th Division to the 24th Division?
Sign In
