I forget do add that JANES is now completely worthless publication after blowing tha RD-93 story two times with unamed sources and both times Russian publicly denied it.

Janes also said China would license production of the Su-30MKK after the 80th J-11 kit.

Flight International is also equally worthless. In June 2001, they said that China will buy 100 Zhuk radars for the J-8II. Later that year, they said Zhuk-MS will replace the radar of the Su-30MKK from the 20th plane. Then in July 2002, they claimed China will put in an order of Su-30MK2 (about 38 aircraft) with Phazotron Zhuk radars.

🙂 A good point we can all live with. We are well aware that most infos are restricted in some way. My point is. Not to deny every opinion, when it does not fix in the “general” opinion first. To highlight what is based on single source information is sometimes very questionable. Like an optimistic claim or even about what becomes real hardware in service working “to full specifications”. In the West it does not happen always, so it is no insult to question the same for Eastern products. 🙂

We know at least from Douglas Barrie’s report that the PL-12 cannot be integrated with Russian fire control systems, that the Russians do not know what its operating modes are and that the Chinese refused to disclose it to them.

That part is obvious. An indigenous seeker exists in at least one of the missiles. If it’s a Russian seeker, the Russians would know its operating modes and thereby would not have problems integrating the missile with Russian fire control systems.

If the indigenous missile cannot be integrated with the Russian made planes, this would motivate the creation of #2, which is to mate a Russian seeker with the Chinese body to solve that problem. Otherwise a significant portion of the Chinese Air force would be denied a meaningful BVRAAM capability.

A motivation for the existance of project #2 has to exist, is because the Chinese, as you see from yet another article, may be dissatisfied with the R-77s, or do not see it competitive with what their opponents are likely to offer.

The breakdown of who would use the equipment would appear this way.

J-10s = SD-10s/PL-12
J-8IIs upgraded = SD-10s/PL-12
FC-1 = SD-10s/PL-12
J-11s = R-129
MKK = R-129

I have to add though, this is still at best logical speculation and observations.

If I read the PLAAF “body language”, you have to come to one logical conclusion why the Chinese stopped J-11 production, why they maybe cutting short of R-77 deliveries, why MKK orders may stop in the forseable future. Yet they are upping the rant on Taiwan and at the same time, the Chinese are not seeking any more foreign alternatives after the Su-27/30s which appears to be their “only” modern warplane source at the moment.

Simiply said, the J-10/PL-12 combo may be owning the J-11/R-77 combo—not as if the Chinese could test this among themselves, and that the leadership are finding it very hard to justify continued production and acquisition of the Su-27/30 in the face of these results, unless the Flankers would have to be market positioned for ground and sea attack.

Are we looking into the future of 2010 by that? 🙂
2 such AWACS have been built. “and are in use as testbeds.” Maybe in some years that system matures to a full scale and riable system?!”
After that. “and more are being built.”

The Russian intelligence has a good impression about Chinese capabilities. There is still a reality gap between proud Chinese claims and real capabilities. 🙂

Maybe you have to figure out why the Chinese are building their own AWACS after negotiating with Russia for A-50s in the end of 2001.

It looks to me it’s because the Russians cannot close the reality gap of their A-50 advertisements with a plausible delivery capability.

Or China shows the real thing in public. 🙂
Posting infos from leaflets are no confidence builder either. Just hot air as a Russian general director said before. 😀

That will be like pot calling the kettle black then. Who do you think gives away the most leaflets.

To be honest with you, the Russians will never be square about what they know Chinese military developments and what they sell to the Chinese. That is why all the articles are so contradictory and full of speculation and opinion. All the articles you read all have both a semblence of truth, covered with speculations and often not, lies.

The fact remains, the Chinese do not want the Russians to talk about either what the Russians learned of the Chinese defense industry from confidential discussion, and at the same time, what they actually sell to the Chinese. Not even to big publications and well known journalists. Just the fact that someone leaked that China signed a contract 24 Su-30MK2 in the month of January 2003, greatly ****ed the Chinese off. A good example of the contradiction, is how Novator went on and off, denying then admitting, they sold Klubs to the Chinese. (They did).

So often then, the Russians would be forced to say the contrary of what they know. Yes lie or deny, but lying is easy in the face of security and classified information guidelines. That’s something easy to do in the defense industry.

From my observation, I gathered that the Chinese has at least three BVR AAM projects in the works, and quite likely, that PL-12 and the SD-10 are not the same missile.

Project No. 1 is the PL-11 with AMR-1 active seeker. This is a modification of the SARH PL-11. Probably first gen for the PRC, and could be operational in limited numbers. The dynamics are probably inferior to the PL-12. The Chinese has displayed the seeker in public. Currently operational J-8IIs might have a two target simultaneous attack, which is only possible with an active BVRAAM, and J-8IIs are only currently fitted with PL-11s. Likewise for the J-10.

Project No. 2 is the Project 129. This is probably intended for the Russian aircraft or Chinese aircraft with Russian fire control systems in Chinese service, and combines a Russian seeker and datalink into a Chinese airframe identical to the SD-10.

Project No. 3 is the SD-10/PL-12. Uses an indigenous seeker. Intended for export (you cannot second export Russian IP without Russian permission) as well as for use with Chinese domestic fire control systems. Ues the same body as Project 129. The seeker is evolved from Project No. 1 here.

The reason why I suspect #2 and #3 can both simultaneously coexist is because it is an effective short term, though rather brutish way, solution in skirting touchy integration issues. If you note the missile can be modular, and by simply replacing the guidance section, you can create one or the other, while maximizing parts commonality.

You have good observation, and yes, you are correct. ARMs are going to be more lethal against ECM targets.

However, you do not need a dedicated ARM to go after ECM targets. Any existing SAM or AAM can be modified to go after ECM targets using existing antennas and components. That is what you call the HOJ or Home on Jam mode, and it is present on the AIM-7 Sparrow, AIM-120 AMRAAM and even the Patriot missile. The Patriot is said capable of targeting a ground based jammer.

Also an ARM has an INS guidance system. Thus it does not need for continious homing. If a radar or AWACS makes a sweep, the ARM memorizes its position through the INS, and the missile will continue to fly on the same path, only making midcourse corrections if necessary when the missile’s seeker recieves signals from the second sweep.

Realize since the missile is small and will probably have antiradiation coating, it is going to be hard to detect in time.

As for the FT-2000, there is a possibility I mentioned before that it might be able to be used against ground targets like radars and ECM. Likewise, these seekers can also be used in theory on the naval HHQ-9 on the 052C, so it can be used against jamming targets on sea or shore.

Does the radar on MG (superky ranger or a chinese equivalent) has the capability for 2 simultaneous engagements? And if so, does china have any plans to equip these with pl-11/fd-60

I don’t know and I don’t think so. Radar is too small. J-7G appears to be in a shoe string budget and is only used as a training fighter, something for pilots to increase their flight hours on, and to do a lot of ACM training. I think the radar is just a small subset of those used in larger planes with features removed. I guess it only have Range while Search and various dog fight modes. If it has Track while Scan and TWS bugged, for BVRAAM support, my guess it is probably for training. Radar is said to be the KLJ-6E, but looking at Zhuhai, there is also a JL-10G or JL-7G,which could mean there is another radar option on the J-7G, with competition between the two firms for the contract.

Sorry, I see the same problem in this picture too. Extend the lines, and you’ll see they don’t merge with the main body. Secondly look at the alleged “fins” of the nozzle. It’s not what should look like movable fins that allow control of thrust – but more like a poor photoshop.

My golly wha do you know. Even the AL-31F does not merge with the main body without some body blending. Even if the engine diameter is bigger, redesign the cowling then to merge with the body. Is that hard to do?

Check the nozzles in all three pictures again. They all have a three dimensionality that you cannot do with Photoshop which tends to be a cut or paste thing. You don’t know what you can or can’t do with photoshop.

The fins are set that way because the are in the *REST* position.

And pray tell me why the heck would an airforce want to replace all engines of it’s main fighter planes even if it could do it? What is the point in wasting so much money first uprooting all those existing engines and dumping them along with their cost in water, and then fitting spanking new engines that are so new and unproven that it would be suicidal to put them on your only frontline air superiority fighter?

Who told you they are uprooting existing engines? They have tons of existing engines, and the reason they have so many spares is because they tend to have a shorter than expected life. China spent hundreds of millions on engines and other parts alone in in 2002 and 2003.

The reason why they are developing new engines for the J-11 is that these are obviously for new airframes. Not upgrading older aircraft which will only have their avionics upgraded, but for new airframes.

But then didn’t China only have 105 kits?

Which is then the contradiction.

Because this, does not look like China has stopped building J-11s altogether. Just stop getting kits from Russia. Rather, the Chinese may still be building J-11s from their own parts without any kits. And as I said, they still have a stockpile of AL-31Fs, and more orders for spares, so they could build new planes even without resorting to using WS-10As engines until the allocation of engines run out, which by then, they can switch to the new engines on the unbuilt airframes.

Unless the experiment is only for testing – which would bring the question – why replace both engines with experimental ones which is only likely to be suicidal? Or is this the “regular” way the PLAAF operates?

The experiment is not for mere testing. They tested it first with one new engines and the other side with the old engine. Just in case if the new engine has problems. The fact that you have both engines that are new such as in the picture indicates that a lot of progress and confidence has been achieved to try this new layout.

The main ingredient to obtaining more thrust is – thrust. Increasing the diameter is not going to do anything even if you make the diameter as large as you want.

Increasing the diameter also increases the mass of airflow while maintaining the same rate of revolution in the compressor stage. For an engine to match this increase of airflow on a smaller diameter, you need to increase the RPM of the compressor. Which puts more stress on the engine—blades, bearings, shaft, gears, etc,. Which needs to be answered by applying a higher level of metallurgical technology into these parts.

Given that you would have to assume that China is still a little bit behind Russia in terms of getting thrust vs. the engine diameter ratio, you would have to assume that for them to attain the same thrust, they would have to use a larger diameter, while the Russians are going for higher RPM.

if you think about it, what the Russians achieved with the R-25 (MiG-21bis engine) is quite remarkable for the engine’s size. But then, expect the engine to suffer from being overstressed.

And your point being? A lot of people saw that article when it was posted around the period mentioned, including me. You can go use the SEARCH function yourself.