crobatoPrototype 02 crashed back in 1996, I believe.
The crash is a popular myth. J-10 01 only first flew in March of 1998, and from the looks of the pictures, prototype 02 never existed. The sequence of J-10s jumped from 01 to an unmarked, unpainted plane in yellow that was only made around 1999. Recently there was a leaked report of J-10 test flights and it made it quite clear the plane suffered no crashes at all, though a single potentially ugly mishap happened. Around the year of 2000 (June?), a J-10 prototype had a systems crash on flight, but the pilot managed to restart/reboot all flight and engine control systems, the engine reignited, and the plane recovered. Subsequently a few years later, the pilot was awarded for his heroism and quick thinking.
crobatoIf it comes to steam turbines, then the Varyag came to the right place. Dalian Shipyard has been making all sorts of steam turbine ships, including the steam turbine 051/B/C class destroyers.
crobato.
The chatters in the net is that the Su-33 along with a navalized
version of the J-10 is going to be it. Moreover, rumors are circulating in
the net that the former Varyag is indeed going to be a training vessel and that 3 indiginous
copies (Varyag class) are in the makes somewhere in China..
One rumor has it that CAC is out of the contention, and the contract has fallen to SAC to produce navalized J-11s, probably based on Su-33 style mods. Might be easier and faster on the short term basis. Regardless of these events, Su-33UBs is a must for creating a training regiment to create a core of pilots trained for carrier operations.
crobatoIf there realy are 100+ J-10’s out there then I think we could eventually see more than the 300 that has been predicted. If we assume production began in 2002, then 25 a year have been produced on average, but we can probably assume that the rate of production has been increasing, so it would not surprise me if some 30 have been produced in the past 12 months- a very respectable rate of production. Considering that the J-11 appears to have fallen from favour, the PLAAF still seems reluctant about the FC-1, and the rumoured advanced versions of the J-10 that are being developed, it seems as if the future of the J-10 in PLAAF service is very bright.
There seems to be signs that J-11 production has resumed as well, so they’re not completely out of favor and FC-1 04 well on its way. But my guess is the bulk of the PLAAF’s near future would fall on the J-10.
Although I would like to see some images of in service J-10’s with BVR’s.
So far we have only seen pictures of the planes on the trial regiment that have them. Pics of live missiles are rare because in training you don’t need to use them and if you keep flying up and down they will eventually break without being used. Once in a while AAMs are tested regularly to make sure they’re still valid, or in live fire exercises, but you would be lucky if someone can catch a plane with live AAMs at that very moment. We’re lucky enough to get any J-10 pic as it is, and extremely lucky to even see the FTTC J-10s with the PL-12.
crobatoJust been looking at the numbers of AL-31FNs ordered/delivered. The only thing which seems certain is that some 54 were delivered in the 2001/2002 period. There were reports that some 250 were ordered in mid 2004 ( http://www.gateway2russia.com/st/art_260291.php ), whilst other sources say that about 100 were ordered in August 2005. I cant be certain about either of these. But it would seem to be likely that there are enough AL-31FNs in china for this aircraft to be the 100th example.
The first order which supplied engines to the prototypes may have been a huge amount to guarantee commitment and to help financially setup an exclusive production line (it is made in a unique facility south of Moscow seperate from all other AL-31F engines). It probably started around 1997 (J-10 first flight is March 1998) and ended in 2001. After that, there was an order for 54 engines whose deliveries began on the spring of 2002. Kanwa claims that between 2002 and 2004, another order for 54 engines was made, with deliveries ending in 2004. Around April 2004, there was more talks but it is not clear if orders were made. Around December 2004, there was near confirmation that a deal was made for 100 engines. Then in July 2005, there was a confirmed deal for 100 engines. I believe the July 2005 order was the ones for the version with increased power and TVC nozzles, which is expected to begin delivery this year. Around October 2005, there was a report of engine deliveries (Jane’s).
The press reports are hazy and the Russian contractors did sign a secrecy clause in the contract, so they’re not obligated to clarify their information.
The best way to follow the numbers is to follow the actual J-10 ORBATs themselves, which location they are sighted and decoding their unit numbers. That represents the bottom line as to really how many planes were operational. Right now it is possible the numbers reach a hundred and over, if indeed it is true that deployments have begun in the 2nd Division and 3rd Division, in addition to those already in the 44th Division.
crobatoI know that Mig-31 has capability to shoot down cruise missile, but since the cruise missiles are subsonic, most fighter aircraft of the present era should be able to do that. Provided, of course, they have the ability to detect the missile.
By the way, tomahawk is well known, how common and effective is this AGM-129 ACM.
First of all, they would need a radar with a very good look down mode. Many fighters in the 3rd generation have radars yes, but they don’t have a good look down mode that can differentiate a cruise missile from ground clutter. One thing for sure when you are scanning down, your detection ranges are cut as a result in trying to differentiate from clutter.
Then the missiles themselves must have good look down modes too. Their radar is also affected by the ground as much as the aircraft. There are reasons why I think SARH is better for cruise missile interception, as raying the target will make the target “bright” enough for your own plane to track and your missile to pick up and lock on. This is a job for planes with truly powerful radars.
You can deduce why it’s easier for SAM to intercept a cruise missile. That’s because their radars look up to the sky and don’t have the same clutter issues.
A cruise missile is hard enough to intercept even without RCS reduction designs and measures applied to it. And if such measures are applied, the chances of interception are worst still.
crobatoIn demand? With the Brazilian deal having been shut down and the Mirage 2000 being chosen, the Su-35 doesn’t have a prayer.
Sukhoi needs to focus on the Su-30, and the Su-30 only.
It can’t. What you think of “Sukhoi” is actually an umbrella for different companies. You sell Su-30 only, and it profits only one of those companies, IAPO, now called IAIA. But you have two other companies trying to sell their wares, and you cannot expect them to keel over. They too must sell something to survive.
IAIA — Su-27UBK (-UBM), Su-30K, Su-30KN, Su-30MK (India, Malaysia )
KnAAPO — Su-27SK (-SKM, -SM, -SM2), Su-30MK (China, Indonesia, Vietnam, -MK2, -MK3), Su-35 (all versions including -BM and -BN), Su-37, Su-33 (all versions including -UB)
NAPO — Su-32FN, Su-34
The result is some kind of intramurals competition, perhaps a reason why IAIA distanced itself from Sukhoi. That had partly to do with KnAAPO, taking the MKK, and selling it to Indonesia and tried to sell the same to Vietnam. It was assumed that the MKK should be Chinese market only, and that IAIA has responsibility marketing the Su-30 brand to the rest of the world. Then KnAAPO went further, taking the MKK, adding canards to it, applied the Su-35 radar and engines, and come out with the two seater Su-35BM, and then tried to market it to South Korea and Brazil.
Once you understand this tripartite structure, its no wonder why there are so many Flanker variants—they are literally competiting with each other. Some of the planes don’t really have much difference with each other (Su-30KN, Su-30MKK).
crobatoWell Isn’t the KLJ-2000 converted form regular IL-76D? China just ordered a batch of them… it is likely some of these might be converted to KLJ-2000…
It really depends on what china deems as sufficient AEW support. The current two airframes is not really enough for a country as big as china.
Yes she did order something close to 40 planes. But they are said to be tankers but I think that is not all of it. Perhaps some will be tankers, some will be air lift and a few converted to AWACS. Won’t be hard to acquire IL-76s from other countries too.
Also the total count on the A-50/KLJ-2000 AWACS so far is 3 (B4040 to B4043). The serial numbers however, suggest four.
crobatoIrkutsk started ‘designing’ its own derivatives (Su-30MKI for the Indians) – which meant that KnAAPO had to start making its own tandem two-seaters for the Chinese – the Su-30MKK.
Not really IAPO’s fault. The Chinese didn’t like their MKKs being made where there are plenty of snooping Indian engineers around, especially if you are making both MKK and MKI planes on the same factory floor. So China insisted that KnAAPO make the MKK,which is not exactly what Sukhoi wanted, which already collaborated with IAPO on the so called Su-30KN.
Then KnAAPO came up with the MKK’s design in record time, China was satisfied, Sukhoi was miffed but still happy that everyone could sign such a big contract.
For the second MKK contract, Sukhoi tried to move the assignment from KnAAPO to IAPO, and KnAAPO openly feuded with Sukhoi on this matter. While Sukhoi got the goverment to do the reassignment, China stepped in and threatened to cancel the contract if the reassignment went through. It was a pretty scandalous year for the Chinese arms sales because at the same time Sukhoi was playing football on the MKK contract, the Project 956EM destroyer contracts was also being footballed from one shipyard to another, and China had to issue an ultimatum that fixes the assignment of the shipyard. Usually the assignment is done by the Russian government. Later that year, China signed a contract for 8 Kilo Project 636Ms, and the terms of the contract stipulates which shipyards are going to build each and every Kilo.
So at one point, China’s second batch of MKKs could have been Su-30KNs.
Then there were rival designs for the RusAF upgrade – the Su-30KN from IAPO and the Su-27SM from KnAAPO – the latter design ‘won’ the contest.
Strangely both are using upgraded versions of the N001. While KnAAPO’s version has a clear name “N001VEP”, it’s not clear what IAPO is using, though I do think it is still the same, since both radars are still sourced from one company, NIIP. Where both upgrades really differ is the rest of the avionics. The change therefore meant technologically little; it is just that the satellite suppliers of IAPO gets the boot on this one.
However, it is still very likely that all modernization done on the UBs will still be done by IAPO as the UBMs, while KnAAPO does the SM upgrades in parallel. The modernization therefore is not truly exclusive. The change (heavily politically flavored) however meant that the UBs are not going to be lined up for modernization for a while.
I think Irkutsk is now ‘independent’ of Sukhoi – but I agree with you though – it is all starting to get a bit silly.
Although they have made up since, KnAAPO was also operating quite independently of Sukhoi and went into court for the appropriation of MKK sales funds. Sukhoi wants the money used to develop PAK-FA, KnAAPO wants the money to be used in modernizing its plant facilities.
crobatoGenerally that’s true. But for China’s case, how many IL-76s can she expect to convert into A-50/KLJ-2000s? I might think that the Y-8 with balance beams or circular radomes might also be meant to fill gaps in the A-50/KLJ-2000 availability/deployment.
crobatoOne can never deduct just looking at the pictures or some pumps around it and suggest its an AESA ( not to suggest that it cant be ) ,
One thing for sure it is quite different from PESAs I’ve seen as I never saw a PESA with cooling requirements like that. This is an enclosed structure quite clearly with refrigeration tubes running into it. This is more typical of the heat requirements for AESA.
But jumping to AESA will be a radical jump , whats more unbelivable is that they have procured the technology from KVNAT of Ukraine , when did the Ukranian ever had a AESA program under development that too for a ship.
That’s why it isn’t a perfect story. The Ukrainians are said to be developing one, and yet I have not seen them actually deploy one such in a ship. Seems more like paper work. Also I would shudder at the potential cost of such an AESA the size of those arrays used in the 052C. It seems way too extravagant. And yet one cannot deny what the presence of these cooling infrastructures might mean, as well as the many reports that describe it as an AESA. So yeah, I put these in the ‘possible’ category till more information surfaces.
crobatoIts more likely that the Type 052C has a PESA rather than AESA.
Basically that’s what I originally believed too, until I see holes around the rim where the antenna is fitted, which might be used to pass coolant or cold air. The array as used on the test ship shows a lot of plumbing, while the entire array is completely sealed. This tells you that the array generates a lot of heat and requires extraordinary cooling, and this is more symptomatic of an AESA than a PESA.
crobatodo you have a link to this claim of Vega emmitter sale?
as for the ‘balance beam’ v ‘dish’ radar arrangement, well clearly the ‘balance beam’ design has huge blind spots in the front and rear hemispheres whereas a triangle arrangement does not.
cost, its as simple as that. three radar sets cost more then two, and would be heavier to boot (hence the need for a bigger ac to carry it). generally, the likes of Eyrin are considered a class below the likes of the much heavier and larger A50Es, E2s, KJ2000 etc (which carry much larger and more powerful radar sets).
The balance beam design is also easier to fly, less drag, more stability than a mushroom over the plane. Despite the plane having a blind spot, you can easily steer the whole plane instead to face that spot. Since the layout is less costly, you can also put more aircraft in the air so they could cover each other.
crobatosome question about the KJ-2000 radar.
I been reading in the Chinese website,claim that KJ2000 uses locally design AESA,but according to january 2006 issue of kanwa,Vega-NIIR chief designer A-50E radar system claim that they have sold main AWACS transmitter to china,and they believe KJ-2000 uses Vega transmitter.this could implied KJ2000 adapted PESA radar system.
When things are bought like in small quantities, generally they are used for study, likely for reverse engineering or to be copied. It’s really hard to say if the KJ-2000 (or is it KLJ-2000) uses PESA or AESA. Though PESA might be more affordable and I always thought of the plane as having PESA.
MT artilce about airborne radar system claim that AESA has wider search angle (80+dgree) compare to 70 degree for PESA,that’s why wedgetail AWACS,MC-10 and Swedish Eyrin radar use just 2 radar antenna sufficicent to cover 360 degree,by contrast KJ-2000 with passivarray antenna has to use 3 antenna to provide 360 dg. coverage.
Eyrie is also a PESA. The thing about the planes with the balance beam is that they are also more maneuverable than the circular top AWACs. If you have a problem with the coverage, turn the whole plane instead.
crobatoOkay, the GDP is 58 billion and the debt is 20 billion.
http://www.plenglish.com/Article.asp?ID=%7BFC114F08-FC2F-47C0-AEF3-605091CF7B44%7D&language=EN
Satisfied everyone? Let’s move on with the topic.
Sign In
