crobatoUfa-Saturn make our engines for the IAPO made and even HAL made planes till HAL Koraput is ready to make -31FP engines from the Ufa’s TOT to it. Salyut makes the AL-31F engines for the KNAAPO made/supplied planes for China.
Which is not correct. UFA also makes the engines for China’s planes.
http://www.concise.org/aerospace/archive/aerospace_archive1393.html
“Both products are also the subject of agreements being negotiated with China, according to reports in November 1999, including a deal with Shenyang Aviation Corporation for the Al-31 for China”s licenced Su-27, the J-11 and talk of 70 pumping stations, worth $3 billion.”
KANWA further confirms this that KnAAPO, who supplied the SKs, J-11 kits and MKKs, obtain their engines from UFA, while Irkutsk, who made the UBKs obtained their engines from Saturn or Salyut. China, however, has not acquired a new UBK since 2002.
Thus there is a big chance that Kommersant’s and Rian’s report may be in grave error, that all the Salyut orders are in fact, all AL-31FNM-1s for the J-10s.
crobatoAdditionally, Salyut signed a contract in May with Beijing worth $100 million to supply in the course of three years spare parts for Su-27SK and Su-30MK2 fighter engines, earlier delivered to China or assembled under a license at a Shenyang plant. Salyut was able to negotiate this contract without the state intermediary, because it has the right to supply spare parts and conduct maintenance on its own. This right was granted to it in September 2002 and extended last September for another three years.
As a result, this year alone Salyut’s order book rose by one billion US dollars thanks to engine supplies to China.
By the way George, where is your similar contract for India’s Su-30 engines, huh? And how come Salyut’s order book never rose by one billion before because of your voluminous engine sparing factor for your Su-30s as you claim huh?
crobatoStrange report because it saying about the SKM fighters, which is not true and that is photographically verifiable. Sukhoi has not signed with China about the SKM upgrade. Neither does China assemble AL-31F engines aas the rian report is saying.
With 150 engines it’s not clear how many are going to new production or be used as engine spares. China has 12 regiments of Su-30s, J-11s and Su-27s alone, nearly totaling 300 aircraft. 150 engines is not enough even for spares, since it can only cover 75 aircraft.
crobatoMan, you can’t stomach the envy can you? Like I said, Fix your own “world class” engine first. Heck, get it to even fly first.
What make the Kommersant article suspicious is because China never signed an SKM deal with Sukhoi.
$500 M is a very very big contract for any mfg, I am sure its not a part of the OEM supplied engines for the lic. assembled a/c.
Quite hypocritical for you since you never bothered to show the voluminous sales reports to justify your high volume “sparing factor” for your Su-30 engine spares.
Ever thought that it is also possible that these engine orders might also be just for spares, given China’s large Flanker fleet?
crobatoWell this post of yours was dated October 2005.
And here’s an article about an additional Chinese engine purchase in December 2005. (in addition to the earlier 100 Al-31’s )
http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=636003
So there you have 250 engines (100+150) ordered as initially stated and this number has not been reduced by the developments on the WS-10.
Surely these deliveries will span a few years; can it thus be assumed that although the WS-10 has made impressive progress, it is still far from entering service on the Su-27’s it is intended to power ??? :confused:
The engines are for the J-10 not for Su-27s. A lot of people, including reporters can’t tel lthe difference between the engine types. Kommersant has its head in its ass. China isn’t getting the SKM upgrade or Sukhoi itself would announce that officially. Don’t know if there are engine orders for the Su-27s or J-11 but even if there were, they would end up as spares. China needs a lot of spares, at least a few hundred of them. Since Russians never bothered to report about the engine orders previously for the J-11s and Su-27s for well over 12 years, why should they really bother now.
crobatoFC-1 cockpit pics. Posted in CDF by Tigershark, from CCTV clippings. Diagram of conventional plane layout on the MFD puts this as FC-1 not J-10.
crobatoI want to see DSI of the real FC-1 04 prototype….If able to see it,will prove the technology advance of this aircraft…
I guess you have short memory. This was posted many pages ago in this thread.
crobatoPrototype cockpit of the FC-1. Posted in the CDF by Tigershark, courtesy of CCTV.
crobatoFile this topic under “believe it when I see it”.
I’m in the same category. However, I do _see_ them doing something to the Varyag
crobatoThat fin above does not belong to any Su-27/30. Take a look again.
The problem of using rumors to verify crashes is because people know zilch in identifying wreckage properly. The only thing we can be sure of is that an accident happened, but the aircraft is unknown.
crobatoNo. There was no basis for creating a test demonstrator for the lack of a suitable engine. The first J-10 flight was on March 23, 1998.
crobatoThere are weights attached with the graphs. At 13000kg, that is not a clean configuration for a MiG-29. Both MiG and Sukhoi do have recommended combat weights which are the basis for these graphs.
Some of the tactics thought up by players of the game is just simply amazing. I was just watching a video titled like How to beat an F-16 with AMRAAM using your Alamo, or Learning how to clip two F-15s with AIM-120s or learning how to win your BVR duel with a SARH R-27ER or dodging BVR missiles without using chaff and so on… Think it all may come in handy when you face these guys online.
crobatoI think thats a bit of a stretch as far as useful eveidence. I mean I have seen similar results in harpoon 3 but then again I know and work with the guy who has created the adatbase that the results are based on and so I know how many assumptions are in there. Unfortunately all commercial games (even the militarys own simulators etc) are based on what someone thinks the enemy’s system is capable of. Hell systems are developed based on what we think the enemy can do. Sure espionage and our own science can help establish performance expectations etc but come on how often are we wrong. ( “We” being a collective type of we from the us (not U.S.) v them line of thought and not being any particular nation or grouping of nations 🙂 ) The US claims the B-2, F-117A, F-22A, JSF fleet etc can penetrate heavily defended airspace and employ an array of weaponary to take down enemy defences and other targets. Various other folks claim to have developed various countermeasures to these systems. We won’t really know who is right until we have a really big nasty war and even then there will likely be mixed results depending on local differences that proponents of one side or the other will happily ignore to make their little points.
Daniel
I am more than aware of the flaws and limitations of simulations, especially with games that are intended to sell commercially.
For a game like Lock-On, the enemy really isn’t the Russians, but the US. After all, despite a company named called Eagle Dynamics, the programmers are in Moscow. The assumptions are likely to be made on the Western systems based on open source material. Which makes their assumptions and insights on their own country’s weapons systems quite interesting.
Some information on the rate of turn between the MiG-29 and Su-27.
http://www.lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=574&scr=default&lang=en
http://www.lockon.ru/img/devjournal/MiG29at200m.gif
http://www.lockon.ru/img/devjournal/MiG29at3000m.gif
Interesting thing about the Kh-31A, something I never saw in any open source material. In the game, the Kh-31A rushes low as if aiming for the waterline of the ship. only to go vertical right at the last seconds before hitting the target, then dive right into the deck of the ship. The other Russian AshMs don’t do this. Against ships, the Kh-31As and other antiship misisles are preceded by an attack of Kh-31Ps (ARMs) which attack with no warning against ship radars—the SPY-1 draws them like a magnet. I kind of speculated that that such a thing might be done though I have never read anything about this; yet the AI in the game actually does it.
crobatoI’d love to know how they think they can neutralize a developmental SAM system that has never been exported.
Using the mission builder on Lock-On 1.12, I made an interesting experiment. Remember this is a game, results may not reflect real life. But interesting nonetheless.
I set up two flights of fighters, one flight of F-16C and another one of F-18C/D, all setup for SEAD.
Against them is an S-300 battery. I set the distance at far.
As the fighters head to the battery, the S-300 radar managed to pick up them. Before the fighters can even approach AGM-88 launch range, the S-300 battery is unloading every missile into the air, and a swarm of 5V55 missiles is already heading to the fighters just as the fighters began dropping their HARMs.
The missles would nail a few of the fighters, though most of them would escape doing all sorts of barrel rolls and other maneuvers will throwing chaff and flares into the air.
The HARMs would nail the S-300 FCS radar, Flap Lid or Tombstone, although the S-300 search radar would escape because it would have long shut itself off once it’s purpose was done and all the missiles were spent. Useless to use HARMs on the TELs with empty cannisters as these have no radar to guide on, the surviving planes would use Mavericks on them, or even try to strafe them with gunfire.
Tried another variation. This time I ring the S-300 battery with Tors, Iglas, Strelas, Shilkas and Tunguskas. I wanted to see which point defense system would nail the most fighters.
Once again, the pattern repeated itself. A few fighters lost in exchange for a Flap Lid. The point defense systems don’t seem to intercept enough of the HARMs anyway to stop the Flap Lid from getting blown up. As the surviving fighters rush to finish off the rest of the battery with Mavericks, they were greeted by the Tors suddenly lighting up their radars and a bunch of 9M330s vertically launching then arching towards the attacking fighters. The air was lit up with small SAMs and AA fire. Suffice to say, while a few more vehicles were destroyed, it was a torrid exchange for a few more dead fighters. I have to add that the Tors are pretty lethal, and killed more of the attackers than any other system, once I tallied the results from the debriefment.
crobatoI would say it’s a J-10 from the angle of the cockpit. The FC-1 is more horizontal and won’t angle like that. With all the taping in the canopy glass, it’s also a brand new plane, just freshly minted in the factory, showing indeed that the J-10 production line is busy.
Sign In
