crobatoA bit small to be a tactical recon pod. You would need room for a small radar and its electronics. My guess is that it is either an ECM pod or a datalink pod that talks to a missile.
crobatowtf are you talking about tombstone is in service with kirov and was undergoing trials and same is true with positiv-ME as well.
Now tell me if they are four faced.
China did acquire two RIF-Ms for backup to their 052C projects, for their 051C destroyers based on the Luhai. Artist conceptions put the radar situated on the back on the destroyer, and is very different from the layout used in the 052C. The radar would have to be rotated around a pedestal in order to attain a full 360 coverage. You simply cannot have a full 360 coverage simultaneously all the time.
If you dont know much on these plz refrain from posting makes you only look more foolish. And dont get me started on you not believing paper projects especially considering on all assumptions you make when it comes to J-10, 054, WS-10 etc.
Hardly paper projects. The WS-10 is flying in a J-11 prototype since 2002. The fact that it works is no question. The fact that it can take to the air and power an aircraft is no question. The WS-10A is at the stage of certification testing. That means it is in the stage where quality control issues are being worked out, and well past the question where it can work at all or not. You are dealing with the polishing stage.
The 054s, of which two are already built, are in the water doing trials. And there are two regiments of J-10s, plus 10 prototypes doing the kind of hone and polish you do at initial operational status.
crobatoPRC is doing things other sensible nations would do, and get as much advanced technology as possible while developing a strong defense industry base as a potential superpower. Not everything is copied nor self-made.
Grifo radar is still a contender for PAF’s FC-1, since PAF prefers western avionics.
Similar to how China could stop the Grifo integration with SD-10, it is not a surprise Russia doesn’t necessarily want the source code / Interface released freely to China. No one knows how easy it is to integrate SD-10 with Flanker from public information.
That is self contradictory. If the Russian component makers are involved with the SD-10 and are already providing classified information and components, they should be already providing the software and interface information. That would be part of the entire banana.
At best the Russians selling individual components to China to produce a competitor for their own R-77 is totally questionable. It supports a competitor for their own direct sales, the R-77, and if China sells the missile to the Pakistanis, the Russians would be in trouble with the Indians if the Indians find out that Russian components are inside missiles that kill their own pilots. The Russians would not risk the political embarrassment.
And let’s make it clear if you understand Russian arms trade policy with China. They still view China as a potential strategic competitor. They are very cautious in what technology they would provide to China. In fact, China has to hardball negotiations to get as much technology from the Russians to even assist the Chinese in order to even maintain such weapons. The Russians would not simply hand over their best and most cutting edge technology to China just like that, most especially not in the mid nineties.
And in any case, they would offer them to the Indians first.
Russian technology transfer doesn’t have to be indirectly from R-77 sample. Stating the testing/delivery date of R-77 doesn’t prove anything.
It does. China never got the PL-10/11 done without the actual Aspide. Neither did China make the PL-8 without the actual Python 3. You need the actual missile to make a direct analysis for reference and make verification tests. The blueprints only tell you a lot about theory but not the practice. The Russians are bad in providing complete information as well. Note the original J-7 project. The information was incomplete. The Russians actually provided working samples of MiG-21Fs to China. The Chinese did not make the J-7 completely from blueprints alone but had to actually analyze the real product.
I don’t think PLA like to take this kind of risks. Not planning spares at beginning would have many potential problems. It’s not worth the trouble.
But they do. They would follow orders to the letter to satisfy the whim of a Party official who isn’t versed in military necessities. They literally used up an entire supply of Spey engines just to make a regiment of the original JH-7s. No wonder some of the planes had trouble flying.
crobatowhat do you mean its land based most russian naval radars are based on land based radars.Tombstone is deployed on kirov 099 was to be mass deployed on all other vessels as well but was put off IIRC. There was plans for four faced tombstone radar on a ddg back in mid 90s i believe the new russian ddg in design phase may incoporate that.
Positiv-3D is much smaller in size to spy-1 but offers 200 km range and can be incoporated into corvette sized vessels wont take much to devolop a larger version of it if needed.
Plans are plans. Unless they turned operational or at least is in trials, they’re paper projects. You can hot air any piece of paper you want. But if it’s not in actual metal and electronics with a stamp of approval on it and a long check record of testing, it’s not real. I don’t view paper projects with the same optimism as you do; it is so easy to make proposals and plans, so much exponentially harder to actually execute them successfully. The issue is what you actually have and not what you are supposed to have or capable of doing. The only thing I give a hoot about is achievement and execution.
crobatoyou are calling me dumb considering how you can read english properly, were did i say that its russian or ukrainian i am not even arguing that it is. I am saying you cant say its not soviet simply because it wasnt deployed on a vessel unless you first off show us proof that is chinese or its not ukrainian. Before you spout out more off you idiotic arguments plz try to read and understand english first. As i said before russia had plenty of naval advanced radar systems that werent mass deployed on vessel i already listed a few off those above..
Huh? Tombstone is land based. Positiv is a very different animal from a fleet air defense system functionally similar to Aegis.
There is no proof it is Ukrainian. Kvant does not even have fire control and missile guidance functions. It is just an air search array. China’s HT-233 phase array systems were already available as early as 1998 long before Kvant was even offered or allegedly sold in 2004.
This is how the 052C PAR looks like. The Kvant array does not look even close to this in shape, color and appearance. The Chinese array looks much closer to an MPQ-153 in my opinion. Except that it does not have the rusty colors of ferrite elements. It’s very likely the elements are active. The cooling ducts in the 052C suggest that the arrays are extremely hot and require liquid cooling. Passive phase arrays don’t get into these kind of temperatures that would need liquid cooling.
even thou i am not the one saying its ukrainian i think its some decent chinese phased array knock off. You cant say that its not soviet based simply because they didnt have such system installed on destroyer as i said before a lot of soviet systems were R&D and were never implemented due to lack of funding.
The Chinese do not acquire, purchase, or even bother copying things that are not developed and proven. In fact, the Russians and maybe the Ukrainians, love to float proposals for projects that sound brilliant in paper, but under closer examination, turns out to be empty and just fishing for development money.
crobatoer, are you saying they plan to build 80 J-10s in the next two years (lets assume 20 engines for spare) ? thats a *huge* rate of production for any fighter (?)
Nope. They are hoping to build 100 J-10s in the next two years. The next 100 engines ordered after that end up as spares if the J-10 shifted to the WS-10A by then. I would agree that is awfully ambitious. And they still have to build another 100 FC-1s on top of that in the same amount of time, since it’s the same company and they have also ordered 100 engines for that too. Literally, that’s about 100 planes per year combined of the two types.
I only wonder how they are going to manage all this.
crobatocrob, i dont intend to offend you chinese guys around, but you’ve missed these from the article :
Western vendors have provided Chinese aircraft with the MIL-STD 1553B data bus, which now has been installed on new 052 DDGs. China has used a Type-W datalink provided by France
Look, the Chinese have been building their own 1553B devices since 1998 and were even offering them for export in their defense expos. That sort of tech isn’t hard to obtain since the standard was set back in the eighties and it’s open source.
The datalink also came in the way from France in the eighties. Old news.
and do you also debunk these claims from sinodefence ??
The TAVITAC is old news. That was provided by France in the eighties and the PLAN has managed to copy them. The Luda and the Luhai has them.
It is common knodwledge that HQ-9 SAM is made out of the S-300 and the Patriot from Israel.
The missile itself does not look like the S-300 and the Patriot. The radar system does look like the MPQ-153.
The antisubmarine warfare suite would be Italian triple antisubmarine warfare torpedo tubes and 12-barrel Type-75 mortars.
and the Type-95 is a chinese copy of the Russian RBU-1200
The designs were obtained from the eighties and the Chinese have been evolving and improving them ever since. But they’re not purchased from Italy since the embargo is still in effect.
crobatoPRC has already received 54 AL-31 engines for J-10 between 2002-04. recently it ordered 100 more, and Salyut says they expect a follow-on order of equal size. It seems inspite of appearing to be in flight tests inside Su27 it is quite some years away from being declared ready for active duty and PLAAF not wanting to delay the entire J-10 any longer went for AL-31.
I guess the reason is reverse engineering or copying a AL-31 type engine isnt a walk in the park and from some point one has to figure things out themselves..Salyut is unlikely to help because nobody in the engine world shares their priceless design skills and test data.
> To the Chinese, the AL-31F is not a proven design. For them, given its
> numerous problems in service, it is pure crap and they would not have any
> of itwell they have already signed up for 150+ on J-10. I dont see why PRC would
be running 200 flankers and now all its J-10s on a “crap engine”. 😀
other flanker users dont think its crap, though its mtbf isnt of the GE std.
It is crap. It is a running joke with the PLAAF. There are pilots who prefer to fly the J-7 as they can trust the old bird more. China uses the AL-31F because they have no option but to buy a lemon. There is very little alternatives for this class of engine, as the other two alternatives are both American. Just to remind you even India has its issues about the engine. But India is a lot more diversified. Since the PlAAF has a lot more Flankers, the problem is magnifed. The two Su-27s the USAF covertly acquired also indicate weaknesses with the engine as per postings in ACIG. And the operability of Su’s in the RuAF and all former SU states are very low.
The Chinese negotiated for the new batch of AL-31FN engines for over a year before settling. The delays despite their need to rush the J-10 production tells you how much misgivings they have on the engine unless Salyut can assure them of improvements and better support.
Shenyang Liming cannot assure Chengdu priority of supply of the WS-10A engine. Which is why Chengdu is relying on the AL-31FN as Shenyang Liming is associated with a regional competitor—Shenyang AC which builds the J-11s. Less J-10s, more J-11s, it’s a simple math. Someone has a direct vested interest not for the J-10 to succeed. This means more jobs and money to the city and enterprises of Shenyang at the expense of Chengdu. This is classic rivalry.
The original order is 250 engines. Given that it is cut down to 100 engines for two years only, indicates that in two years time, maybe Shenyang Liming can finally provide the new engines for the J-10. But Chengdu is keeping its options open.
It’s the J-11s that count. SAC has not ordered new AL-31F engines. They have not gotten a new kit for over a year now. The stop order was executed on May of 2004. So what the hell are they building with? Given that the J-11s still have one step higher priority over the J-10s, why don’t you wonder why there is no AL-31F order for the J-11s before the engine order for the J-10 is made.
crobatoYeah clueless…check out this link >> http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/anmviewer.asp?a=992&z=38 … blows the top on the 052c’s non-indegenous hi-tech components.
Where? Do you know how to read?
This is what the article says.
“The Soviets seem to have had considerable trouble in exercises with their Gorshkov phased array radar, as mechanical scanning Top Sail/Top Pair radars replaced it on the next Soviet carrier, the Tblisi. Sea operations attempting to successfully target incoming threats using external ship or aircraft platforms also seem to have failed.
“China’s first 6,600-ton missile destroyer with an Aegis-type four-plate phased array antenna is the Lanzhou DDG 170 launched in Jiangnan Shipyard in April 2003. The DDG 171 followed six months later. Their undesignated Chinese radar is different from the Aegis or Sky Watch phased array radars. This radar is C-band instead of L- or F-band, and it has convex curved arrays instead of flat panels. The four arrays are 4.6 meters high x 3.9 meters wide, and they face out from the forward deckhouse as on the U.S. DDG 51. China reportedly has purchased two advanced Russian phased array radars for a follow-on larger air defense DDG 103 ship that is under construction at the Dalien shipyard. The short one- or two-ship production runs are a trademark of post-Luda DDG designs.”
The radar the Chinese bought went to a different ship. As far as the 052C radars goes, there is no Russian equivalent.
“At first glance the Chinese VLS launcher looks like the Russian VLS, but there are major differences. The Chinese VLS modules each have two fewer cells than the original Soviet VLS, and the Russian VLS has only one hatch, as eight cells with blow-out patches rotate under it to launch. The rationale that the Russian eight-cell modules were too large for the smaller Chinese DDG hull does not seem valid because the diameter of the Russian module is only 1.5 feet larger than the Chinese module. Possibly, China used S-300 missiles, and Russia provided no naval SAN-6 equipment. “
So there are big differences. As to the last statement, the author is just speculating.
“China does not have a large dedicated SAN-6 Top Dome fire control radar near the VLS launchers. The Aegis phased array radar could provide search, and a small antenna near the VLS also could provide X-band acquisition and control links. The smaller guidance and tracking G-/H-band antennas that also have been found on Top Dome radars are located as stand-alone links fore and aft. A small radome is adjacent to fore/aft VLS launcher modules alongside the close-in weapons system, and this is usually covered by canvas in photographs. Several radomes are located fore and aft for satellite communications or non-VLS links or search functions. A very large radome atop the bridge mast may be a Type-364 multipurpose air search, surface search and targeting radar.”
So it’s not Russian then.
“Chinese combat system architecture is less visible, and open literature sources do not directly describe it. A photograph in a working space on the Luhu showed several identical consoles being manned by technicians, and this was not seen on earlier stovepipe sensor and weapon equipment. The consoles do not look like any units seen on Soviet or French products, and they may have been designed and produced by Chinese electronic plants. Possible vendors are the Jiangsu Automation Research Institute, which is known to make rugged naval computers and displays, and Huanwei Technology, which makes Ethernet switches, routers and fiber optic datalinks. “
The 052C uses some foreign techs, mainly the Bandstand and Lightbulb which indicates that the proper indigenous Chinese FCS system for the YJ-83 was not available during the time of the 052C’s construction. But on the newer 054, none of these were found anymore. Instead they are replaced by an indigenous FCS. All the upgrades to the YJ-83 upgrades to the Jiangwei, Luda and Luhai classes do not use Russian supplied FCS and datalinks.
and sinodefence (although you discredit it) says : Reports indicate this radar system may be a co-development program with the Kvant-Radiolokatsiya company of the Ukraine. The band and performance of this radar have not yet been publicly reported. The radar may be a developed version of that first seen on the 970 weapons test ship, and could either be S-Band or Russian-style X-Band.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/052c.asp
Discredited by the Bussert report since the 052C radar is C band, which is easy to detect and verify by long range ELINT sensors. The Kvant radar is air search only and totally lacks fire control functions.
crobato[QUOTE=Stealth Spy]and about all the chinese missiles :
The famed PL-12 or SD-10
The PL-12 was said to be derived from the Italian Aspide technology and integrated with active radar-homing seeker technology obtained from Russia.
Incorrect. The Aspide is a copy of the Sparrow, while the PL-12 has dimensions much more closer to the AMRAAM. The Aspide has canards bigger than the tail fins, while the PL-12 is the opposite. The tail fins also feature a jagged tooth edge, a designed used in the AIM-9X.
The seeker technology is based on the AMR-1 which debuted in 1996. The Chinese had no access to Russian active seeker techs then, since the first R-77 only came to them in 2001.
The missile was developed indigenously, but also with helps from foreign manufacturers. Several Russian missile and subsystem developers are reportedly supporting the program, with much of the missile utilizing components from the R-77 (AA-12 Adder).
Why? Is it because these contractors do not expect to make money from R-77 sales to China? I doubt that the Russians would permit this since it hurts their own business. And why bother with an indigenous design at all, since you can directly copy the R-77 in its entirety and be done with it.
The airframe and aerodynamic design is clearly not Russian or evolved from any lesson taken from the R-77. In fact, they are very different—the conventional candards and dogtooth tails fins of the SD-10 vs the long body canards and lattice tail fins of the R-77.
If the missile used Russian components, it would be easier to integrate them with the Su-30MKK and the Su-27. But the fact is the opposite. The PL-12/SD-10 does not integrate with Russian systems at all.
In 1996 China revealed an active radar-homing seeker AMR-1, which is possibly based on Russian technology. Claimed to be developed for the new generation active radar-homing MRAAM, the AMR-1 seeker or its developed variant could be used to guide the SD-10.
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/sd10.asp
The AMR-1 seeker looks like any seeker with a planar antenna. Prior to 1996, the Chinese never had access to the R-77 and never did until 2001.
PL-11
Chinese copy of Italian Alenia’s Aspide missile (which inturn was derived from the U.S. AIM-7E Sparrow) that it got in the late 1980s
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/pl11.asp
This is correct. Note that China is only able to copy the missile after it got the missile.
PL-9
Apart from its control surfaces the PL-9 is almost identical to the Israeli Python-3, which was developed from the AIM-9L. The one major difference, according to information in Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, is that the PL-9 has only about one-third the range of the Python 3.
The PL-9 is just a refinned version fo the PL-8. See below. The range of the PL-9C AAM is 22km. The Python 3 is 15km. The SAM version of the PL-9C is 5km.
China has improved upon the PL-9 by marrying it to an apparent copy of the Arsenel helmet sight from the R-73.
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/pl9.asp
This is correct and the improvements is also true of the PL-8. Just remember that the PL-8 is only a refinned version of the PL-9. What changes and improvements you show in the PL-9 is originally showcased in the PL-8 or vice versa. China has evolved their helmet targeting systems ever since.
PL-8
The PL-8 infrared homing short-range air-to-air missile is a Chinese copy of the Israeli Python-3.
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/pl8.asp
Which has been much improved since. The latest version, the PL-8B or PL-8C should have an air to air range of 22km, and has a 4 element multispectral InSb seeker that is also used on the PL-9C. It should also be compatible with helmet targeting systems.
The PL-4
The PL-4 is a Chinese copy of the U.S. AIM-7B Sparrow. (from Pak ?)
http://www.sinodefence.com/missile/airlaunched/pl4.asp
This is correct. The AIM-7B is obtained from Vietnam war.
Its other missiles : R-73, R-77, R-27 – These are Russian missiles.
China is not copying them. This is not flattering for the Russians.
crobatooh i see that stuff has moved here from the other 2 threads. thanks
oh and about the FC-1’s radar :
The Italian Grifo S-7 fire-control radar was chosen by the PAF to equip its JF-17 Thunder >> http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/fc1.asp
and this : Pakistan Air Force officials expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of Chinese avionics and radar systems, preferring European-made systems.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC29Df03.htmlcare to explain this carbato ??
Old news.
The Pakistanis have reversed their course on this. KANWA has mentioned that the first FC-1s will be equipped with the Chinese KLJ-10 radar. Currently there is no discussion on the Grifo systems and I have not heard of any news related to it lately.
PAF needs to find another missile to work on the Grifo as China will not supply the SD-10 to work with the Grifo. That is why they were shopping for the R-Darter before. But the integration between the Grifo and the R-Darter would take time and would not fit the schedule PAF wants for the FC-1.
China has already dropped the Thales RC400 and the Kopyo alternative for the FC-1 as well. There has been no followup news on these.
crobatoThe WS-10A is the Chinese engine intended to replace the Russian ones in the J-10 and the Chinese Su-27 (J-11).
I have a feeling it is a reverse engineered chinese copy of the Al-31FN.
You have a feeling?
The WS-10 project started around 20 years ago, and there was no AL-31FN to copy.
China’s previous history in reverse engineering and making illegal copies of proven designs further strengthen’s this feeling.
It’s a copy or an inspiration of something, but it’s the wrong engine. It’s a copy of an American turbofan, the CFM 56 or something, based on a civilian airliner engine and whose core technology is the same as used as in the Pratt and Whitney F100. And likewise also used in the PW1120 as in the Lavi fighter.
Russian arms industry sources have disclosed that China is close to mastering the complex skills required to build(reverse engineer ?) the Al-31 engine
page 7 of http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/ch10.MASTER.050513.pdf
Do you know the AL-31F core tech also powers ships and can also be used in power generation?
Russia reportedly had denied China the license to produce the engine locally. As the result, an indigenous engine WS-10A (came up)
http://mil.jschina.com.cn/huitong/J-10_J-11_FC-1.htm
You cannot copy a modern jet engine fast enough. It takes at least one or two decades to fulfill. Which is why the the WS-10 had to trace its roots to an engine much earlier.
The unavailability of the WS-10 for the J-10 project brought in the AL-31FN. Since the AL-31FN came after the WS-10 is already being developed, the WS-10 had to have its origins somewhere else.
The CAC is also trying to replace the Russian AL-31F with the indigenously developed WS-10A, which is said to be a Chinese copy of the AL-31FN.
http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp
Sinodefense is not an expert on the J-10. It has been updating its own articles to match that were already written in Chinese.
what are your views ?? for China have never failed to copy any proven design that they get their hands on…and the examples for this are innumerable.
Your problem is that you’re looking at the wrong design. The WS-10 is derived from a civilian airliner engine whose core technology is the same as used by the Pratt and Whitney F100. This engine was made available to China since the early eighties with airliners.
To the Chinese, the AL-31F is not a proven design. For them, given its numerous problems in service, it is pure crap and they would not have any of it. In China, you got a lot more GE turbofan engines sitting around in airports and maintenance depots than them having the Saturn Lyulka engine. The core tech of these engines are similar or one and the same as used in the GE F110 used in F-16s.
crobatoChinese people really look good in uniform, the officer and formal uniformsare also so nice, brings you back to the old Soviet days.
I kind of have a different opinion about this. Chinese uniforms are made to preset sizes, like your typical small, medium, large and extra large, and this somehow makes them either a bit too large or too small, whereas in the US, they go the expense of actually tailoring uniforms to your body size.
crobatoI think your rationale about the engines has merit. It doesn’t answer the question of putting the plane in the 44th. I know we’ve gone over this in the past and I don’t want to now but why would you shelve what is believed by some to be your best fighter just to get a better deal on the engines?
Why yes, if the demands include improving the reliability, availability and service support. Just remember it affects all three planes—J-10, J-11, Su-30. The fact that your best planes all have a common engine to depend on would force this. The glaring weakness is the quality of the engines. It’s just useless to build hundreds of J-10s without a proper reliable engine and support. It is probably not as much as the issue of money, but to force the Russians to concede more technical information that could aid the Chinese to be able to maintain and repair the engines more autonomously, which the Russians might suspiciously view as obtaining information for use for their own engine products.
A J-7 in the air is always better than a J-10 in the ground.
The last issue remains. If the engine concerns are satisfied with a new engine support agreement, will China resume the orders of engines for the J-11 and buy more Su-30s?
And based on a response on the CDF, I’m not exactly sure if the 44th is as bad as you suppose it was. So far they have managed the J-10 without any detectable crashes. And again, the south is probably the most populous and fastest growing industrializing areas in China now. It’s high time they need some proper air defense, including the city of Chengdu, its industrial concerns including the factory making the J-10s.
It would seem CAC would get enough to keep working and then work on the negotiations for down the road. I supose you could have a number of planes that str far enough along that all you need is the engine but that strategy would seem risky. Otherwise, they have had factory sitting idle. A lot of possibilites to explain this either way.
From what I see (two regiments plus two seater prototypes), they just basically used up all the engines and left nothing for spares at all. If problems happened to any of the planes, there won’t be backup replacements and the planes are forced to idle. Without spare parts (the new engine support agreement has this), the planes are useless. This could explain why some J-10s are moved to the backup airfield.
But a valid indicator none the less. Mainlanders who get photos of new planes like to post them on the net. Many of the forums we fans go to are the same ones you speak of so we see much of the same information. This is how we found out about the JH-7As at Hangzhou.
There are photos of planes, and best yet, unedited photos, that are not posted in the net but are circulated among a circle of fans. These pictures probably include unedited photos of J-10s and J-11s with their serial numbers. Mainland fans also have the opportunity to watch CCTV clips in their entire length, instead of relying on video captures that hardly tell the whole thing and miss a lot.
Exactly my point. President Jiang authorized 50 per year but Chengdu has not been deliverying them.
That is not Chengdu’s fault if they ran out of engines following this order to the letter, which is why I don’t think there were spare engines left to cope with any reliability problems that occured with the 50 plus planes they built. It is the government who transacts with the Russians for the purchase of the engines.
crobatoThe AL-31FN engine concern for the J-10 may only be temporary. The Russians may have wanted to insist on a full 250 to 300 engine buy, while the Chinese may have wanted to buy about 50 engines per year. The reason why China wants to do small orders only and do not want to commmit to a full long term order is that China may not want to end up holding too much of something when the domestic alternative comes on line. What happens if China is holding over 200 AL-31FN engines in stock when the WS-10A for the J-10 becomes available?
There is going to be wrangling over the size of the buy. The Russians surely want a long term commitment to protect the jobs and the enterprise at stake here. Every business depends on long term planning. The short term yearly buys China likes to engage in tends to keep the Russians on their toes and feeling unsecure. I must add that the delaying tactic for negotiation is something I have seen Japanese companies used against Western companies. If the Western company gets impatient, they are more likely to accept terms less favorable. It’s possible such tactics are being used against the Russians here in the negotiation table. The Russians did not get any big orders from the Chinese in 2004 and their sales charts have shown a big drop. They would be feeling a bit desperate by now and are more willing to compromise.
100 engines for two years sounds to me like some kind of compromise. I don’t expect the WS-10A for the J-10 to be ready until 2007 at least, and by then the 100 AL-31FNs would have been delivered, and China can decide to use the WS-10A for the J-10 by then, or continue on with another batch of 100 engines.
With regards to the J-11B, I heard it uses a variation of the J-10’s flight control system, radar and avionics. it seems that these areas of the J-10 appears okay at least for Shenyang to try to use them for its own plane. I agree with Overscan’s observation that the J-11A still uses the old RWR. If J-11B would use the J-10’s RWR, it would probably have the same oval blister we see on the side of the J-10 near the canopy. The blister would be somewhere in the J-11’s body, possibly near the air intakes. This would give us a strong visual clue in identifying this plane instead of waiting for it to show with PL-8s or PL-12s. That is, unless the designers choose to retain the old same antenna.
Sign In
