crobatoPhazotron’s attempts on the Chinese market has not been very successful.
Attempt to sell Zhuks for the J-8II got inevitably canceled or went nowhere. Instead, the Chinese went to their own radar for that plane.
Phazotron sent Kopyos for evaluation with the FC-1 and proposed the Kopyo-F with phase array for that plane. That plan now appears aborted, with the Chinese now appearing to have switched to their own radar.
Zhemchug, a lightened, sinicized version of the Zhuk-ME, appeared targeted for the J-10, but that seemed aborted as well, when the J-10 switched to a domestic radar.
According to KANWA, China has recently entered a new round of arms talks with Russia, and it appears that one of the issues on the table would be the Su-30MK3.
N011M is no chance with MK3. Rather, it is the N001VEPF, which is the phase array version (with Pero) of the MK2’s radar set. Code name is Panda, which is quite fitting. The other option is the Zhuk-MSE, which can be Phazotron’s last chance into breaking into the Chinese market.
crobatoMaybe it more on the issue of C-803 missiles? I heard Su-30MKK still cannot carry C-803! Maybe PLAAF has develop a LACM base on C-803 and wanted their aircraft to carrry it.Therefore JH-7A will defintely prefer than Su-30Mkk.
That is true that Su-30MKK still cannot carry C-803.
But in China/PLA, the distinction to carry antiship missiles or to strike sea targets belong to the jurisdiction of the PLANAF (Naval Air Force), while the distinction to strike targets on land belong to the PLAAF. It seems strange but that is the way things operate.
That is why Su-30MKK in the PLAAF cannot carry any antiship missiles, even if they have the technical capability to.
And that is why Su-30MK2 in the PLANAF cannot carry or use anti ground weapons like LGBs, even if they have the technical capability to do so.
That is why JH-7A with the PLANAF will only be tasked with anti ship strike (AshMs). But duties involving ground strike (LGBs, LACMs, ARMs, etc,.) will have to be conducted by PLAAF planes, which in this case would be the PLAAF JH-7As.
It will be the same way with the J-10s.
well, looks like JH7As for the PLAAF seems to be gaining credibility fast. but why?
The fact that we have seen one photo of JH-7 testing with laser targeting pod, and JH-7A with LGBs in the background do suggest that JH-7A are being setup for ground attack, which means PLAAF jurisdiction.
if the MKKs are having issues with LBGs, are these issues so hard to fix that they are willing to buy another ac type to do the job?! and what are the PLAAF doing with them in the meanwhile? surely they dont need close to 80 SEAD ac.
MKK is still waiting for the SAPSAN-E pod. For some reason it seems to be delayed in development. It was supposed to be available years ago.
On the other hand, I’m not sure if JH-7/JH-7A is capable of delivery of TV guided weapons (e.g. Kh-29T, KAB500kr, KAB1500kr, C-701, YJ-8X LACM). I have not seen any yet.
It is beginning to look to me that MKK is being fitted for TV guided weapons, while the JH-7A is being fitted for laser guided weapons (KAB500L, LGB250, KAB1500L, etc,.)
crobatoWe should really forget that patronizing and bumptious attitude about somebody “not allowed” to have something because of events 60+ years ago. If you don’t want somebody to have something, go there and take it away or destroy it.
Japan has every right – derived from the devine right of doing what is neccessary to further your interests, regardless of what others, that might not have your best interest in mind, say – to build nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Japanese are a strong and able people, are one of the most coherent societies and their rise is the Far East is very well in the West’s interest to counterbalance China. And I can understand that China will cry foul if Japan gets more ambitious, but that’s only defending your biotop when a new bully shows up.
And as I said, it is absurde to argue based on things 60+ years past. That is only possible because of electronic archives. Or do you think that too many people in 1875 cared or knew in propaganda-detail, like people today think they do thanks to History Channel etc, what Napoleon did 60 years ago then?
If Japan’s enemies are strong enough to hamstring those natural develpments Japan will surely experience in a couple of years, after the last of the WW2 generation will have died and the Japanese society will follow a more natural path, they will do it with actions. But don’t talk about paper as if it were the real thing. Can’t change things anyway, the U.S. getting weaker, new players arise. New game, new chance I say.
Wrong. You seem to have a short view of history.
Why not if it will be the New Imperial Empire of Japan of 2050 that will be pointing the nukes at the United States instead? When Japan’s constitution was drafted, those who did it were looking at things in the very long term, just as those people who wrote the US Constitution.
Countries change, governments change. That is why there is a Constitution—to provide protection to an eternal constancy of principle that cannot be compromised by periodic situations.
To say there is no seething nationalistic sentiment among the Japanese is incorrect. Look who is the current mayor of Tokyo now.
There is no way one can anticipate history. What China will be fifty years from now, what the US will be fifty years from now, what Japan will be fifty years from now. That is why a Constitution is made in the first place—to protect us from changes in principle to all circumstances and situations unforeseen and unpredicted, and hold future generations to these principles dear and eternal.
crobatoIt would be big news that the JH-7A would be accepted by the PLAAF. Due to the delays of the SAPSAN pod and all, the MKK has some issues about LGB delivery, whereas the Chinese have gone ahead in developing laser targeting pod support for the JH-7A. China has ordered some LGBs from Russia lately but they’re not for the MKK.
crobatoJ-10A haven’t attain operational status in PLAAF,right?
Most likely it already has starting in 2003. it entered into an operational evaluation phase in the mid to autumn of 2002, and that probably expanded into an initial operational unit by 2003.
crobatoIt also shows how easy it is to create fake pictures using such high quality CGIs. I’m not so sure I would recognize it’s a CGI if I didn’t know for a fact it is.
Indeed it is very good.
Unfortunately, there are errors on the wing, which is a bit small and incorrectly bent. The engine nozzle is not properly copied. Something is also wrong with the rudder and the radome is supposed to have some tiny lines running across it.
crobatoIn the meantime while Hui Tong sorts out issues on his website, can someone inform Tom C that his ACIG forum isn’t working properly either?
crobatoLooks to me like the whole scheme is different. In the B&W picture it looks like the upper surface is darker on the jet without the cutout than it is on the other three.
You’re only talking about J-11 #30. Su-27SK #47 and Su-27SK #42 is still using the old colors for the body, but the radome cutout is not there. I suspect radar modification, with the removal of the cutout left as a visual cue.
J-11 #30 appears to be a very new plane. It belongs to the 19th, which has a mix of old Su-27SKs and UBKs from the very first order, mixed with J-11s. As a unit that got old hand-me-downs, it’s not a particularly “elite” unit among the Flanker regs, and thus it’s likely it got its J-11s after the other units got its fill (1st, 6th and 7th. J-11s also appear in the 2nd and 33rd, which are also mixed units).
The change in color in J-11 #30 may be an indication of a new production standard, but i’m only speculating at this point.
crobatoAll the design dissimilarities between IAR-95 and FC-1 seem to be more evolutionary changes and updates than a totally different, independently concieved, project.
Hardly. Many of the design similarities between the IAR-95 and the FC-1 comes from trying to copy the F-16. Just look at the wings. Also the change from lateral side intakes like the IAF-95 to the canted intakes of the FC-1 is not evolutionary by all means. The concept of using canted intakes came from Grumman’s conceptual work on the Super 7, and as you know, the US were using canted intakes in planes like the F-18.
crobatoHardly. The Romanian project lacks the angled canted cross section nose of the FC-1, and the wings are located high. The FC-1’s wings are located midheight of the fuselage, has fuel tanks just above the engine cowling, and has dogtooth edges in the LERX. In addition, it has dual ventral fins on the bottom. The backedge of the FC-1’s rudder is also straight, not angled like this.
crobatoThat J-10 is pretty stripped: quite a bit of fuselage panels off, no canopy, a panel from the fin missing… Ground instructional airframe?
The plane has a yellow nose. Probably all metal and had telemetry equipment on it. I’ve only seen one other pic of a completely yellow J-10 before.
My guess is that the plane had long finished its purpose and is being used in the manner you described.
crobatoHey that FLANKER is missing the cutouts on the radome…new paint scheme?
Not sure.
So far I’ve seen Su-27SK #47 and J-11 #30 having this, but not the other planes so far. #42 is the third one I’ve seen, and it had the cutouts before. This airframe, like #47, should one of the older Russian made planes shipped in the batch 1995-1996.
My speculation is this. These planes may be having a new radar or radar modification, and are using a new radome. The lack of cutouts may be used to visually identify these modified planes from the rest.
crobatoOMG, that’s classified material and that’s quite taking it too far. Regardless, the pictures shown appear to provide little of intelligence value. The canard actuators have been shown in Zhuhai before. The flight control system, you see that FBW box there, that looks like the same one shown in CCTV when they were interviewing a Chengdu designer on the FC-1. The guy was showing this same box, which was also displayed in Zhuhai.
The fuel tanks for me, looks quite a bit more than you might possibly hold on an F-16.
crobatovikas, the J-10, the Chinese will most likely adopt the Phazotron RP-35 “Zhemchug,”, at least thats what globalsecurity.org had to say.
for the FC-1, the fire-control radar was expected to be selected among Israeli Elta-2032, Italian FIAR Grifo S-7,Thales RC400 and Russian Phazotron Kopyo.
I doubt if the Israelis would sell the Elta2032 in order not to **** off India, and knowing that the end users would be Pakistan. so, that left the other Western options, and the Russian one.the Italian Grifo S-7 fire-control radar, is capable of look-down, shoot-down, as well as for ground strike, but lacks multi-targets tracing and attacking capability.
integration apparently is taking too much time, so that your own ACM, admitted that despite not being too keen about the Chinese radar (they rejected them initially did’nt they ? ever wonder why ? ), they’ll now settle for it in the initial batches. A locally designed radar derived from CLETRI JL-10 may be installed on Chinese version (and the initial PAF versions too).
the JL-10 Radar which is an export version of the Phazotron Zhuk Radar planned for the JH-7. there is an improved version of the JL-10 in the pipeline, i think its the JL-15.
Then, theres the KLJ-1 radar used on the J-8D and J-8II-02 fighters. The KLJ-1 is regarded as a successful radar replacing the previous unsuccessful Type 204 unit. (both from NRIET)
another fighter radar called KLJ-3 (also from NRIET) that was tested on a Y-8 testbed could have been a J-10 candidate (but now, the Type 1473 radar has been chosen for the J-10).
since the Type 1473 radar has’nt yet entered service, I doubt that it will ready for service with the FC-1 either.
Boy you just passed yourself as a know nothing yet know it all.
1. Zhemchug is out. According to KANWA, the Chinese evaluated it and has passed it over for the Type 1473 radar. There is certainly no orders of Zhemchug made beyond a few evaluation pieces.
2. The FC-1 is going for the KLJ-10 radar. Not only confirmed by KANWA but other sources as well as Chinese news items.
3. Type 1473 (KLJ-3) has entered service with the prototype and intial batches of the J-10. The next series of radars may be KLJ-10 or Type 1475 (KLJ-5).
4. LETRI JL-10A has lost the J-10 radar competition along with the Zhemchug and EL 2032. It won the JH-7A contract instead.
5. KLJ series radars are evolved from the KLJ-1 introduced with the J-8II. This means by the time the radar form hits the J-10 and FC-1, it’s already on a second generation of evolution, already a refined and mature system. That’s why the Chinese could quickly deploy and incorporate them on these aircraft and maybe even the J-11. For example, the SD-10 integration done on the J-8F using the KLJ-1, can easily be passed to the other jets using a KLJ type radar.
6. The KLJ-1 itself proved to outperform the Zhuk-8II system proposed for the J-8II and which China nearly bought, but inevitably canceled. China settled on the KLJ-1 as the final upgrade for the J-8IIs.
7. A baby version, the KLJ-6E is proposed or used on the J-7G fighter. However, a design from another company, the SY-80, is also competiting for the contract.
8. NRIET is the culprit behind the KLJ series radars. Their website has a picture of the J-10 on it, although they refused to talk about such in detail. They have offered planar and phase array ground based radars for air search and artillery spotting. They are most likely behind the radar project for the Chinese A-50i AWACS, as the A-50i is seen in one of their hangers. This suggests that the planes will also be datalinked by the same company.
crobatoSeeing more reports saying the same thing from other news agencies including AP.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a…ina_submarine_3
China Launches New Class of Nuclear Sub
1 hour, 4 minutes ago White House – AP Cabinet & State
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – China has launched the first submarine in a new class of nuclear subs designed to fire intercontinental ballistic missiles, U.S. defense officials said Friday.
The submarine is, at a minimum, months away from having missiles installed and going on a cruise, one official said, discussing foreign weapons developments only on the condition of anonymity. Still, it is further evidence of China’s intentions to expand both its nuclear weapons and submarine forces, officials say.
It was widely known that China was building the new class of nuclear-missile submarine, called the “Type 094,” but the launch is far ahead of what U.S. intelligence expected, one official said.
The launch was first reported in The Washington Times. The newspaper reported that U.S. intelligence spotted the sub at a shipyard 250 miles from Beijing.
It would be China’s first submarine capable of launching nuclear weapons that could reach the United States from the country’s home waters, officials said.
The Chinese military has also been developing a new class of submarine-launched ballistic missile, called the JL-2, that is expected to have a range in excess of 4,600 miles. The Type 094 submarine would carry these missiles, but it is not clear whether the missiles are ready for deployment.
Previously, China has had only one submarine capable of launching nuclear missiles, called the Type 092, or Xia, class. In 2001, a Pentagon (news – web sites) report said the Xia was not operational. Its missiles were of an older class that could fly only 600 miles.
Successful cruises by the Type 094 would give China a new strategic deterrent against the United States, no longer limited to land-based ICBMs and weapons carried on aircraft. But U.S. defense officials say China lags behind the United States in its ability to hide submarines from sophisticated sonars and other sensors.
China is also modernizing its land-based nuclear missile force, replacing its estimated 20 ICBMs with more modern versions. In a report on China’s military issued last May, the Pentagon said China’s cache of ICBMs could increase to 30 by next year and 60 by 2010.
Although considered unlikely in the near term, the most likely avenue for conflict between the United States and China is over Taiwan, which China regards as a rogue province. Taiwan is seeking high-tech weaponry from the United States, including diesel submarines and anti-submarine aircraft.
The United States, France, Russia and the United Kingdom all have submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.
Sign In
