crobatoThe two plane production per month probably lasted as long as the supply of engines and that wasn’t much.
Engine related issues is probably what has been affecting the plane. The AL-31F has a terrible reputation with the PLAAF, and without a backup engine to fly this time like the J-11, pilots may be naturally be more reluctant. The flight characteristics seems to be okay, as news are more available now from the mainland, so we would know if a crash happened either in the FTTC or in the 44th. But there is none, and so far even if the supposedly worst unit of the PLAAF managed to absorb the plane without any major mishaps, then all is indeed well.
But there may have been a near mishap—which I believe to be engine related—that may have temporarily scared the wits out of the PLAAF.
It should be noted that the engine deal with Salyut came simultaneously as China worked out a support and parts agreement with Salyut for 100 million US. This indicates that the engine and the support agreement are heavily tied together. In view of certain engine problems, China wanted more assurances from Salyut, that may have included modifications on the engines, as well as better support and parts availability. This may be the reason why the negotiations took that long a time, since the negotiations started last year. China has been banging over Salyut over engine related support and parts issues for the last few years or so.
Engine problems may have also affected the flight availability times, something that happened with the Su’s, causing the flight availability periods to be carefully rationed.
China’s interest not to be too AL-31F dependent may have lead China to seek more varied sources in engines with other plane designs. You can’t put too many eggs in the same basket. The rationale for the FC-1 is coming to this.
And no, the FC-1 is not based on the J-7. It is a totally different aircraft from the aerodynamics to the airframe. Both the J-7 and the FC-1 are monoques, where the airframe literally wraps around an engine. The engines for the two are very different. Chengdu won’t be proposing the F-7MF variant of the J-7 if the FC-1 is J-7 based.
Will there be an engine order for the J-11? That’s the next important question since it has many implications. But currently it seems China has chosen to build more J-10s over J-11s, but we have to wait and see if the new support agreement would also lead the way to China ordering a new batch of engines for the J-11 or a new batch of fully built Sukhoi fighters like Su-30s. The heldup on both areas may also be related to the engine and hinging on the engine support agreement.
crobatoAny idea what missile is shown to Former Pres. JZM here………
Looks a bit like an SA-N-12……
Quite possible. The officer leaning on it talking to JZM, apparently talking bout it, has a naval uniform, so at least it’s a naval missile.
crobatoOr perhaps the numbers have not been painted yet or they censored the numbers deliberately. Numbers are often digitally changed or removed even in new ships and tanks. The picture above looks like its composed for a publicity poster. They just ordered 100 new engines. Does not sound like they have major problems in the program other than engine availability and funding competition with the J-11.
crobatoChina has never gotten anything based on the Saturn 36MT until next year, that is if China approves of the Kh-59MK purchase. The first China got a Russian air breathing missile was in 2001, when they tested the Kh-59ME.
But the USA was already pressuring China as early as 1998 for exporting the C-802 (an air breather) to the Iranians.
crobatoSo can you tell me which Russian engine or mod is used for the turbojet/turbofan engine of the XW-41, Dong Hai-10, YJ-60/61/62/63, the C-802 and YJ-83 missiles?
crobatoPossible. There appears to be a black line, just above the four blue dashes in the red strip. You will see it better if you magnify the image. That might be the slot where the wings might come out, and it’s the right size at the right location.
crobatoThe initials on it seems like YJ. I get the impression it is YJ-62 or YJ-63. It lacks the wings like in the Tomahawk, so this is not a long ranged terrain following cruise missile. With the YJ prefix, this is more of a long range antiship missile. The disposable rocket booster behind the missile is also more typical of an antiship missile.
In any case, great pics, along with the Kraken variations (the missiles with the Seersucker bodies with turbojets adapted to them). Note that the YJ-62/63 pic came with the Kraken pics, which are also AshMs.
crobatoThat’s Chengdu/132 Factory. Trust me! I once lived in Chengdu for a few years.
Thanks. How’s the food there?
On your JH-7A pics, is the numbers correct?
crobatoThat black one is indeed a Tomahawk.
On the YJ-83 front stage, it’s hard to comment on that without getting more information about the missile. The length and size of it, could perhaps support a secondary rocket stage. It was interesting to see the mockup at least.
crobatoThe shelter is pretty standard. The building in the background is more indicative of Chengdu city rather than the rural Gucheng. I mis-spoke before about the Flankers being at Gucheng, I was thinking J-10.
Thanks for the observation. It it my subjective impression that the background of this picture is quite different from the background where we had the earlier darker green 1002-1009 prototypes were tested. Chengdu seems more “greeny” and tropical, and the area has a lot more trees, while this picture looks colder and dryer.
There are also about three J-10s inside the hangers and my impression of them is that they’re painted light blue with the camo color typical of the earlier production J-10s. But I cannot be absolutely sure without a high resolution image. It maybe that Chengdu could have retained a few, perhaps.
crobatoThere wouldn’t be yellow planes delivered to the FTTC. It is not even likely a yellow plane would be anywhere outside the plant. You don’t even see them at CFTE.
I doubt this place is the factory. It looks like the same place where we had that pic of the J-10 with oil pans underneath, or the pic where the engine nozzle is shot directly. There are painted and unpainted J-10s here, and J-10s under some brown tarp.
PL-12 testing would not be done at the FTTC for either the J-11 or the J-10. It would be done at Dingxin in the Lanzhou with aircraft probable from CFTE. The FTTC wouldn’t get them until the bugs were worked out and the missile operational.
Wasn’t the two pics of the J-10s with PL-12s we have seen were from the regiment based with the FTTC? The camo pattern is the giveaway. I doubt that newer J-10s would have the same camo pattern as they had back in early 2003. Or perhaps, a few J-10 from the FTTC were transferred to Dingxin for such testing. Or the missile is already operational.
crobatoSo does this mean the Su-27 indigenization is almost done? Only the engine left? Is the FWS-10A still having trouble??
Not sure how far the Su-27 indigenization has gone. I would think that the radar and other components has been changed, upgraded, either with new Chinese or Russian or both systems.
PL-12 integration appears being worked on the J-10 right now, and it looks to me it is the J-10s based on the FTTC being done on that. There is a pic of J-10s in this thread that looks like hangers with J-10s based on the FTTC, with new still yellow J-10s just arrived to join them. Perhaps a new bloc of planes with revised radars adjusted for the PL-12.
I’m quite curious to see if there are J-11s in the FTTC. The possible collision accident of two Su-27 types in March suggests that the planes were from the FTTC according to some reports but I can’t be absolutely sure if they were actually from the FTTC or the 19th Division close by (this division is confirmed to have at least one of these darkened, light grey radomed J-11s, No. 30). So I’m just putting this in the possible category. If there is going to be PL-12 testing with the J-11, it would have to be done in the FTTC and J-11s would have to be assigned there. The testing equipment for such would already have been based there in lieu of the J-10/PL-12 tests, so it would be just natural the J-11s with PL-12 would do their testing on the same base.
crobatoExcellent job …. but why this work just to re-draw a very detailed and clear CG to a “looking like real” picture which is blurred ???? … Just to fool such stupid guys like me ???? :p 😉
I would like to see the big version in the same resolution like the one You posted !
Anyway, THANKS a lot ….
…. here’s my attempt to compare both !
Deino 😉
When you put it side by side, the comparison gets odd.
On Songbird’s picture, the Kh-31 targeting pod is located left side of the center fuel tank. The JH-7A on the top picture has what is clearly a larger pod which is located right side from the center fuel tank and then an empty pylon on the left side.
Other than the LGBs, the upper picture has a PL-8 on the wing, and its pylon placement is downright technically correct, just after the wing dogtooth. The guy who put this is really good. If you look at the tail and beyond that, you can see part of the right wing. From which you can see the tail feathers of the other PL-8 hanging on that side. The Songbird picture does not have this.
Between the fin of the fuel tank and just before the ventral tail fin, you can see a tiny fin protruding out. It belongs to the LGB hanging on the other side of the wing.
Another detail. The fuel tank on the upper picture does not have exactly the same ship as the Songbird plane. Why? It also hangs from a longer pylon that sticks more than Songbird’s version. If the fuel tank for A plane is a copy of B plane, it should have been exact.
The change in the details are clearly 3 dimensional, as you can see details hanging off the other wing away from the reader’s viewpoint. You can’t cut and paste 3 dimensional details without proper compensation for viewpoint scaling and lighting.
So this leads me to two things.
1. The first picture is also a CG by Songbird, but not copied from the bottom plane. Rather it is a variation with a different layout. Some prankster took the picture, modified it then blurred it.
2. The first picture is actually an original, and Songbird’s version is in fact, the copy, and Songbird used the first picture to help validate the scale of his CG model by trying to recreate it as exactly as possible from the same angle and lighting conditions.
crobatoWell I’ll be danged! That was pretty good work.
Why does Songbird use the targeting pod on his picture? That pod was meant for use with the Kh-31, not for the YJ-83.
crobatoI don’t think it’s a PS. The pod is located on the front right fuselage hardpoint. The JH-7A has five hardpoints in the fuselage.
The wings appear to have a PL-5E on the wingtip, and a PL-8 inside.
Sign In
