It’s called illuminators, and they’re built like giant spotlights (no surprise). There is nothing in the 052C ships like those, although they’re clearly seen in the 052B. The AEGIS ships also have seperate illuminators. The missile cannisters are not exactly like the S-300 either.

Are those S-300Fs on 170 and 171? The launchers look very similar to those seen on Slava class ships.

I don’t think so, given that the S-300F is unlikely to work with those radars.

Yes you got it right. It looks like an F100 and should be an F100 unless the Chinese directly copied it. I’m just surprised it looks a bit more dated than my impression of it was supposed to be. The nozzles are a little short of what i thought the nozzles on the F-16 are supposed to be.

Maybe it’s just the holidays, or that a new J-10 pic doesn’t elicit the same response it did a few years ago. The pictures appear to come in spurts.

I noted in the Russian arms sales article that the mention for the Russian template Su-27 upgrade for China isn’t mentioned prominently anymore. Still wondering what is the state of negotiations on this one.

Yes if the F-15 had never been built who knows what direction the F-14 development would of taken… New engines, vastly improve avionics, a2g capability… We probably even would of seen the F-14E Strike Tomcat.

I doubt that. Rivalry between the USN and the USAF would probably ensure that the USAF will always end up with a different fighter. If the F-15 was never invented, something else would have been invented in its place.

Crob,
You’re missing my point entirely. An F-16 with three external tanks can be used in a maximum ferry range scenario but you often see them with at least two external tanks so they can get a decent combat radius. The J-10 is no exception. With only one (or none) external tanks its range is nothing to write home about. It may have slightly more gas than the F-16, but it’s still going to be relatively short-legged owing to the simple fact that it is not a very big fighter when compares to planes like the Su-27, F-14, or even the F-4.

And yet it appears that the PLAAF appears satisfied with the J-10’s range (to the detriment of other larger plane types). You seem to have no understanding that delta wings can hold as much as 30 to 40% more fuel than a sweep wing, and once again I told you that the J-10 has “fat” back like the Fulcrum-C which is used to hold more fuel, that the J-10 also appears slightly longer, and if I’m not mistaken, the AL-31F has a higher bypass ratio than the PWF100 engine, which makes it more economical. When loaded, the J-10 will have less of a handling penalty as the plane will have a lower wing loading than an F-16, and the lower wing loading means less thrust is needed to lift a given weight. I also expect the J-10 to have good economy in near transonic cruising, which is typically characteristic of a low aspect delta design, and unlike the F-16, the J-10 will also have lower canopy drag due to its lower canopy design.

You say the Chinese “should just come up with dual racks”. Who’s to say the Swedes can’t do the same with the Gripen (meaning eight AAM’s plus two fuel tanks) or the Americans can’t do the same with the F-16. I highly doubt that’s going to happen.

That can happen. The Chinese for example, already have multiple ejector racks for bombs.

So what if the J-8II can carry bombs or tanks on its outer wing hardpoints. What’s your point?

It shows you how strong a delta wing can be in a structural sense.

And six BVRAAM’s? The F-16 can already do that, so this theoretical capability for the J-10 isn’t really anything special there.

That is just the wings alone.

And full capabilities of the centerline hardpoint aren’t realized yet? Lol. That seems to a typical line from you when talking about new Chinese airplanes. I still want to know where you’re getting the idea that AAM’s can be carried there. Photos would be nice if possible. Till then it’s only an idea, and one that doesn’t have much credibility until I see some proof. So, if you want a decent combat radius out of the J-10 then you better put at least two underwing tanks there.

Oh, and can you refute that it cannot be possibly be carried there? Any hardpoint that appears stressed enough to carry something heavy has a potential to be used with a BVRAAM. It’s just a matter of wiring and the storage management system, which means it’s only a matter of the PLAAF giving out the requirements for so. What more the two front hardpoints in the front part of the intake appears stressed enough for an AAM and has enough space for a longer ranged missile without blocking the doors for the landing gear. That can mean two more AAMs are possible in the fuselage in addition to a potential one in the center. [In the ipicture below, the thing in the center hardpoint does not appear to be a fuel tank but rather a radar surveillance pod.]

Pictures, or the lack of evidence is no evidence of absence as dear Pres. Bush once said. The Chinese have only just begun to start scratching at the full potential of the J-10 airframe.

J-10 can carry 7 AAMs, six on the wings and one in the belly. Chances are, it has more internal fuel than an F-16, given the delta wings and its large surface area where it has a greater internal volume. Also the J-10 has a outwardly curved back like the Fulcrum-C, not inwardly curved like the F-16. This shape allows you to hold more internal fuel. The J-10’s bomb carrying ability should be no better or worst than any F-16 or M2000, which is to say, not really that good compared to larger fighters in terms of mission cost effectiveness.

Small fighters were never meant for carpet bombing anyway, and they’re not better in CAS roles compared to more specialized aircraft. Payload only becomes an issue when you’re carrying iron bombs, not PGMs and ASMs.

JH-7A to me seems like a semi-pointless. The cost of a modern plane today is so expensive that I question the “specialty” roles. For the cost, it should both be able to do as fighter and bomber. Multirole is what clicks today. JH-7A strikes me as a potentially useful bomber, but useless as a fighter although it can potentially defend itself. It is probably more complex and expensive to build than the J-10, and marginally more effective in the strike role.

The reason why the Chinese may be keeping it is that the Chinese are still wary of engine problems and other quality issues with Russian equipment—believe me, the Chinese actually trust the quality of their own equipment over the Russians. This is especially with regards to the Flankers, of whom they had so many issues as they had pointed out even in their own official journals. The rush to put their own engines on the J-11s have as much to do with the reliability issue and actually less on the cost issue.

The PLAAF appears initially wary of the quality issues with the JH-7A, due to the issues pertaining the previous variant, the JH-7. But it seems resolved for now. PLAAF still has many questions about Sukhoi’s support—many complaints appeared not having been addressed. But with a domestic jet, all support is inhouse.

The JH-7A does not appear at least it could support a larger number of the bigger sized ASMs or bombs than the J-10, though it may support them over a greater range and having a second officer means it can offload the work. For example, if forced to carry YJ-83s, both planes will only carry four, though the JH-7A can carry a second pair of IR-AAMs. The radar on the JH-7A does not appear any bigger than the J-10’s, although the JH-7A has far more backspace to carry avionics equipment, and with better provisions for cooling.

I suspect it is in the avionics fit that the JH-7A beats the hell out of the J-10. It simply got the room for more, and to cool them too. Compared to the radar on the J-10, the radar on the JH-7A appears to have a much more developed weapons capability in terms of ground and ship attack, and with the modes to support them.

I think it took a long time for the PLAAF to be finally convinced of the reliability of the AL-31FN engines on the J-10 either, to confirm a large order so late, whereas the JH-7A uses domestically manufactured engines, though the design was inspired from the Rolls Royce Spey, which by itself is actually a reliable and economical design, although the power output is low compared to more modern turbofans.

Compared to the MKK, the JH-7A gets to support the local weapons, AshMs like the YJ-83, which is not supported by the MKK. Compared to the Kh-31A carried on the MK2, the YJ-83 has a much greater range with a large punch, although it’s subsonic.

Q-5 is certainly not pointless. It’s cheap to make. CAS roles don’t really need a fast high performance jet. The Q-5 is still overly speedy for such a role. But it is cheap, expendable and most of all, reliable. The engines do have a short life but they’re so cheap, it’s cheaper to replace them brand new than to overhaul. It does have a small payload though, which is something to consider since it only carries bombs, rockets and LGBs. The Q-5 is considered a “trusted” plane, an old reliable, compared to the high tech sexy jets the PLAAF/PLANAF has recenty acquirred, all the Flankers, MKKs, J-10s and JH-7As etc,.

For this reason, this also explains why the J-7 and J-8II continue to be built. For their faults, they’re considered trusted and a known quantity. The J-7E/G is certainly very popular with the PLAAF pilots. Just recently the PLAAF acrobatic team appears to be getting J-7GBs—notice why don’t they use other jets. The J-7 is so cheap to make, it’s chump change. It’s short ranged, has no BVR, limited payload, but for what you’re paying for it, it still makes a cheap training jet for your pilots to raise their flight hours, practice ACM, and do exercises. I believe that the PLAAF Flanker pilots still often train or exercise in J-7s to raise their flight time and profiency, rather than to wear out their expensive Flankers and their still touchy engine issues.

J-8IIs also seem to be another pointless jet, especially in the eyes of many Chinese military fans and observers. It’s handling characteristics is only a so so, and certainly not as popular with the pilots as the J-7E/G. But it has a much more effective radar and it makes a cheap BVR platform whose components are inhouse supported and locally made. The upgraded radars on the J-8II (those fitted with the Type 1471 set such as the J-8D and J-8H) appears better than that of the Su-27SK and has sea search capabilities.

Of all the planes in the PLAAF today, the one I think is the most pointless is the Su-27SK. It probably costs more to build than the J-10 or JH-7A. The radar and avionics fit is so outdated even by Chinese standards (even the J-7G has a slotted array radar). In the ground role, it can only carry dumb bombs and rockets—a waste to do this with an expensive jet, compared to the Q-5s out there—-and in the BVR, it only has SARH missiles when even J-8IIs might be getting PL-12s. Then issues of reliability and Sukhoi’s support, which the Chinese never appeared to be fully satisfied with. It’s sole redeeming virtue appears to be in WVR combat, but for that it’s really big and heavy, and many of its own pilots still train in J-7Es, whose transient performance still makes it difficult to beat even with an Su-27. [There is a story that a Blue Flag aggressor unit in the FTTC that actually refused J-11s in favor of J-7s. The leader of the unit made a bet with his commander that he would take on three pilots simultaneously from the PLAAF’s most experienced Su-27 regiment in medium altitude, no hiding with terrain masking etc,. If he loses, his unit gets J-11s. If he wins, he gets to keep the J-7s. Which he did.]

The Su-27 really needs to be upgraded one way or another, and Sukhoi really needs to upgrade its support, as the PLAAF’s appetite for Flankers has considerably eroded these days..