Very true, but what about using tankers to satisfy the longer reach missions? Also what if the countries have a lot of airfields all over the country to cover everything and there is no need for heavier longer ranged fighters?

Yes, you can extend the range of smaller jets by tankers and external tanks, as well as distributing air fields.

But while operating a smaller fighter is cheaper than a larger fighter in a one to one basis, overall, operating a larger amount of smaller fighters is going to be more expensive than operating a smaller amount of larger fighters. Your pilot training and expenditure costs are just about equal, but you need more pilots with your horde. You need more tankers. You need more bases. All that in addition for every individual fighter. There is also more strain in your command infrastructure coordinating more airplanes rather than less.

You also need to generate more missions to drop the same amount of ordinance. Not just in payload weight, also in hardpoints. Let’s use the FC-1 and the Su-35. You need 2-1/2 FC-1 delivery missions to match that of a single Su-35 mission in payload delivery.

But isn’t lets say Su-35’s radar much larger and much more powerful, it will allow engagement of many different targets at much longer range than any radar that would be able to fit in an FC-1.

As we have seen before, numbers of target engaged in a radar is a factor independent of both small and large jets as the next quote says. But…

The Su-35 offered to Brazil has 8 engage and 20 tracked. RC400 for FC-1 is 8 engage and 24 tracked with 100KM tracking in low altitude lock down mode. and either Su-35 has to carry 8 AAMs or PGMs. You cannot carry that many AAMs at the same time with PGMs. Also there is multiple rack feature now coming for caring additional AAMs.

The larger jet can better live up to the radar’s multiple targeting potential since it can hold more AAMs, compared to the smaller jet.

Let us assume that the Su-35 is not dropping any PGMs. In that case, it can carry an entire load of AAMs. The FC-1 on the other hand, might be forced to carry at least a tank, two or three. This reduces the number of AAMs you can carry. You are also forced to carry the obligatory light AAMs, so in short, the number of BVRAAMs you can carry is less. As for the twin racks argument, both small and large jets can carry them too, so the advantage is still maintained for the larger jet. But the larger jet is likely to have the structural support to carry more of these twin racks than the smaller jet.

Once the BVRAAMs get even bigger, the advantage goes further to the larger jet.

However, when horde of smaller jets meets fewer larger jets in combat, the smaller jets do not need to carry that much AAMs since they have less targets to engate.

One must note that with GCI and AWACS, the larger jet’s superior ranged radar becomes not an advantage. The smaller jets can be vectored by GCI or AWACS with their radars in passive state. With the smaller jets flying low to take advantage of terrain masking, the larger jets would not know what hit them.

My ideal mix is to have smaller jets operate in concert with larger ones. Like Su-30s, the larger jets should have a two way datalink among themselves, as well as to AWACS and GCI. Then they have a one way datalink to smaller or supporting fighters, allowing them to coordinate the other fighters.

at least the photo confirms J-10 has 11 hardpoints and PLAAF intends to use it for CAS role

Yes, it also confirms the authenticity of the paper diagram leak you have in your site and all the possible hardpoint locations.

I am wondering how a British mag managed to scoop Chinese netters getting a new J-10 pic.

This is really 1006, since 1006, like 1005, has the small dark RWR under the canopy not present in other 100X series like 1003. This RWR is different from the actual one used in production versions.

LWF not only surpass in number, but also in mission generation. A single LWF can generate more missions in an X number of time over a HWF by virtue of simpler maintenance. Thus you get a force multiplier effect that are even in excess of the numbers implied.

However, size and locale of the country involved also play a strong part in determining fighter mix.

Large countries and countries surrounded with bodies of water should benefit more from larger and more capable fighters with longer flight and radar search ranges. This is especially when planes are fitted for antishipping and long range patrol duties.

Geographically small countries, or countries with heavily bordered conditions (potential enemy right across the border) should favor increased numbers of smaller fighters for iincreased battle tempo and intensity. This is especially when planes are going to be fitted for close support duties.

When countries face mixed conditions of the above, sometimes a mix of HWF and LWF fighters would be appropriate.

You’re right, it’s an oversimplification. But then, does HPRF (high frequency PRF) which gets more hits per sweep, also has less range due to shorter/weaker pulse? And lower PRF does the opposite?

HPRF RWS and I believe TWS also adds an FM carrier wave, and the changes in FM wave is used to determine radar range. But that reduces range as well.

When you further go into modes used for locking and tracking targets for guided missiles, you’re into FMCW techniques, at least from my understanding. SARH missiles like the Sparrow, and ARH missiles like the AMRAAM all use CWI techniques.

I’m very surprised about this since I never heard a peep out from Pakistani air officials about this one. At the same time, I’ve never seen photos of prototypes, even though we got pics of the J-7G, FC-1 and FTC-2000.

Crobato, there are quite a few new weapons in China that are either in production, or development.

Is there a good overview of all Chinese armament?

Not on the new ones no.

Recently we have confirmed one new designation but not the exact nature of the missile itself, likely to be an AshM or cruise missile:

YJ-85.

It took place in Sumdorong Chu…

Sure they are more mechanized, if you think so – also that mechanized army is going to roll over the Himalayas..

And you think your Indian army can cross over the Himalayas on foot?

Don’t you think the EU actually had the means, but saw zero scientific value besides boasting. Japan and India certainly have the capability, but saw zero value, instead India is contemplating a manned mission to the moon – even that is hotly debated about its merits.

Excuses, excuses. You don’t have the capability until you actually go out and do it. The boosters for manned spacecraft is certainly a lot larger and more powerful than for satellite launches. Japan does not have a good record for recent satellite launches either, while the Chinese have been flawless in the last 30 or more launches.

As for scientific value, no one in NASA doubts the value of putting a man into space. That knowledge is priceless. To know how a man can survive in a space enivornment, you need to put one there. That leads to greater things such as space laboratories.

We have not even touched the military aspects here.

It was no real great scientific feat.

You only say so just because you never done it.

Sounds a lot like the Souyez – from what I saw the space suits and capsules looked a lot like what the Soviets developed.

It’s a lot more sophisticated than a Soyuz. The first section is also its own laboratory with solar panels two or three times larger than a Soyuz to power it. The modular section is a self contained space vehicle on its own (the ship has three parts), which can change orbit many times and is used to conduct long term experiments. This is not to mention all the possible surveillance equipment inside the first and the third modules.

Don’t bet on it. The US pulling the plugs on imports or curtailing them due to the pegged rumbei is a real possibility.

Don’t bet on that either. Around 11% of the current US GNP is literally based on the resale of Chinese made goods. Consider that China is also capable of pulling the plugs on purchases from the US, since the trade is two way.

Remember Japan was the largest holder (probally still is) of the US T-Bills – look at them now. The US is smarter than most give them credit for.

Smarter? The US is paying interest to Japan. Total US debt is now close to 8 trillion. That’s alarming for a 10 trillion a year economy. Money is literally flowing outwards from the US to the debtors. Amercian children will be paying the debt incurred by the free spending habits of their parents.

Generally, the Chinese do followup on their threats and promises—Korea, the Indian border, the Vietnam border… When they set goals and objectives, they go out to do it whether it’s sending a man to space or getting more golds than in the Sydney Olympics. The historical record do show the Chinese do follow up on their threats.

The land of the Rising Sun does not impress the Chinese either, believe me, considering that Japan has more to lose—it’s basic economic recovery is tied to exports to China and its companies making money there.