crobatoIF the fighters and missile boats can crossload targetting information that is!. Is there a Chinese equivalent to LINK16 in operation? How widespread and how capable are the nodes?. Do the coordination facilities exist to mount such a time critical assault?. If not how far away are they? Have PLANAF aircrews trained with the current PLAN FAC(M) fleet or are these skills that need to be developed?. Many questions Wolf!.
Totally unrelated, KANWA recently published a series of articles speculating on this very exact question about datalinking in the PLAN.
One speculation is that the 052B and 052C class DDGs are acting as communication nodes between the Russian equipment (Su-30MKKs, Sovremannies, etc,.) and the Chinese equipment (you know the stuff). This is due to the presence of both Russian and Chinese datalinks on board these ships.
The PLANAF crews need not specifically have to train with the FAC fleet or have direct communication with them. Simply, the info is supplied to the nodes, and whoever is connected to those nodes can use this information, even Song subs (which can fire an YJ-8X class AshM).
Possible? Yes. Again, in a totally unrelated article that used to be published in Irkut’s website, the Su-30KN—an aircraft whose avionics equipment is very similar to the MKK/MK2—is capable of transmitting radar and infrared information from the air to nodes in the sea and the ground.
In an unconfirmed report, in exercises JH-7s or JH-7As were said to be passing information to Su-27s and J-8IIs, suggesting they have datalinking. The Chinese had access to the Zhuk-M and Zhemchug radars, which may have influence on the JL-10A radars used on these planes. This has been suggested in a number of reports including those from the Center of Security Policy and Jamestown Foundation. No doubt the radar size is similar—around 700-800mm in diameter, big enough to scan up to 300km for a destroyer sized target.
Oh and one more thing. The YJ-83s (the missiles most likely used on the 2208 FAC) have datalinks (the link is seen even in their mockups), which means targeting information can even be sent while on flight.
crobatoActually, it is the other way around. Grifo and Thales are the ones who have to send their radars to China—if they had not already, since they probably already did—so that the radars be tested and fitted.
crobatoWrong. No J-10 ever used the RD-93, not even the prototypes. If you read that from some website, then the author is an idiot.
crobatoJ-10 does not use the RD-93 by the way, unless you’re thinking of a J-10 like plane with two of those engines. The J-10 uses the AL-31FN, which belongs to the same family as the engine for the Su-27. The domestic engines for the J-10 is already flying in the J-11s, which is the WS-10A. But the power and weight class of that engine is in a different league from the RD-93. You’re talking about 29,000lbs here, F-16 class, more than 10,000lbs of thrust over the 18,000lbs or more so than the RD-93. It’s a bigger engine that won’t fit in the FC-1 however.
No loss here. If the Russians don’t sell the RD-93, the FC-1 will be delayed, but the Chinese will fit its WS-13 engine on it (under development). And if the WS-13 is delayed, China might end up selling J-10s with WS-10A engines on them. Instead of the PAF getting 150 FC-1s for the budget, they might get like 70 F-10s instead. Regardless the Chinese will keep their business and the Russians will lose them—and MiG, the company who owns Klimov—cannot afford this loss of business.
crobatoYou got the wrong AFM forum. Try Historic Aviation before the mods decide to move it.
crobatoThe reliability requirements fof military chips are much higher. In addition to that, there is something called EM resistance, as well has radiation hardening to prevent the chip from being affected by cosmic rays which is more abundant in the upper atmosphere. Then there is heat issues. To counter all that, you will be surprised that this actually favors chips with larger micron sizes (except on the heat issues) than on smaller micron sizes, which makes the chip more vulnerable to cosmic radiation and EM interference.
If you have a 10GHz chip, you will have a major heat problem—will probably melt the PCB it sits on.
With real control systems, you are not inclined to build monolithic systems with one or two uber-CPUs, but rather lots of distributed microprocessing with lots of smaller and slower dedicated processors handling each subsystem. Thus the end result is that the system ends up looking much more like a network than a PC. Instead of 2GHz CPUs multitasking applications and threads, it is better served with lots of 20 to 200MHz processors each dedicated to a single task and talking to each other through a bus.
The real computational intensive task in a fire control system or radar can be done by DSPs (like dedicated numeric coprocessors) and the results handled by the CPUs.
crobatoAdrian, what you say is still nonsense. You can sandpaper the label off any chip you see in the market today, just white dye printed on plastic.
As for your 10GHz comment, again, that is nonsense. The cost of such a fab alone would make such a chip cost as much as an entire F-22, and it won’t be possible without extremely huge pipelines, which would absolutely suck in latency the moment the chip does a context change.
The civilian market is not like the market in the eighties. The civilian market leads the military market by a huge margin because the sheer volumes would justify the costs of building such plants, volumes not possible in the military market. Ask yourself why so many DOD chips are being fabbed in Japan, not the US. The testing and development cycle in the military is way too long; Moore’s Law can occur several times over the course of such testing and development.
You’re just preaching, that’s all I can say.
crobatoChina might be building or buying as much as 1200-1500 J-10s in its lifetime, according to Russian officials leaking this to Richard Fisher of the CSCC.
crobatoTo say there would be a legion of FC-1 is too too early to guess accurately beyond speech bravado. The PLAAF is very conservative and very selective, and does not give exactly favors to local boys (the JH-7 comes into mind). The JF-17 has to match and flyoff against every PLAAF fighter type out there from the J-11 to the J-7 in both WVR and BVR mock engagement before the officials will make their final decision.
crobatoeven if the FC-1 carries six SD-10 it will add weight and reduce range to it`s minimun due to weight and lack of fuel tanks, air refuelling it`s an obvious solution but having a short legged jet
Nonsense. The FC-1 can carry 3800kg, and one SD-10 is only 180kg.
crobatoA clock speed of 10.5 GHz seems to very difficult to believe. Intel with 0.09 micron has found it difficult to cross 3.4 GHz barrier, and that for a cpu which has extremely long pipeline (P4 sacrifices IPC for frequency) and was designed from scratch for high frequencies. F-22’s computers are way old, and are probably built using 0.18 micron process.
Theoretically, Such high frequency may make sense for DSP chips, if the input signals to them have extremely high frequency, but even then the standard fashion is to down convert the frequency before feeding the DSP.
Also designing A/D converters for such frequencies will be extremely hard.128-bit architecture also does not make sense (unless you are referring to length of some internal registers).
I would have to add that Adrian’s comment is complete nonsense. There is no microcomputer around with 10.5GHz, and you will be lucky if the next set of computers for the F-22 will go past 300Mhz. You can’t make dynamic and flash memory go with such rates, making the processor virtually spin its wheels.
The only chips that can use an 8-12GHz frequency are TFLs using a GaAs process needed for the radar.
crobatoYou cannot outrun SAMs which often go Mach 4, and it does not matter if you have 4G or 9G if you are faced with a massive proximity blast. The only thing you can do with SAMs is decoy them. Agility isn’t worth a damn against small SAMs which can often turn in excess of 30G (PL-9C SAM = over 35G). The best thing to do against SAMs is to take them out in the ground and that favors having more planes to undertake operations against multiple ground targets simultaneously.
crobatoYou again demonstrate little understanding. You think that SAMs is easily evaded just by turning around? Guess again. Evasion is often not a very good idea because SAMs have proximity fuse. It does not matter if you evade them or not, when they get close, they blow, and no amount of evasive maneuver is going to escape the proximity effects of the explosion. Small SAMs like AAMs have maneuverability limits much greater than fighters (like over 35G) and their circuits do not suffer from blackouts like pilots. No matter how much G you can turn, the missile will always out turn and you will never escape its proximity blast.
crobatoYes but, do you really feel the Russians would wants a plane shot down or a tank knocked out and, from the side of a radio where the case is bent open and see labels like Mortarola, Intel, TI, etc.? Or have a weapon system stolen and find IC’s with no label and inside the IC packages find parts from American manufacturers.
ONE HELL OF A PIECE OF HUMBLE PIE THAT WOULD BE!
For someone living in California, you seem to strike me as someone who has never seen an IC package before.
Get a little piece of sandpaper and SCRUB the labels off. That hard to do?
And besides, AGAT already made it public knowledge that its 9B1103M seeker uses a TMS 32C032 DSP, which is a rather common DSP.
crobatoWhy would North Korea buy it? They want to get everything for free.
Sign In
