crobatoAccording to Fomin (maybe that should be our chant – the Flanker according to Fomin ?)
Max G for Su-34 is 7, Su-33 is 8 – all the rest are 9.
Ken
Irkut rated their Su-30KN in their factory website at 8G.
crobato3M80E is the export variant sold with the two Sovremannies to China.
3M80MBE is a new variant with 240km range sold with the new 956EM Sovremannies to China.
crobatoCrobato: Checked Huitong’s site out, apart from the standard info (like engines when it came out etc) it doesnt go into detail about weapon systems etc.. just mentions RWR (no specific type) etc. The other site was more helpful but couldn’t read much of it. Anyway back to what you mentioned..about PLA thinkers debating about JH-7 vs Su-30MKK what are your own personal opinions about it.
Been busy for a while so my visitations on this forums will be sporadic.
My personal opinions is that I like the JH-7A to continue, in order to just have a little more variety and interesting stuff in the PLAAF/PLANAF, or it would be otherwise drowned in a sea of monotonous grey-blue Flankers. Save a little foreign exchange, and give poor people in Xian city some employment. China has a little too much unemployment. In the long term, you help develop the domestic technology base.
I also think that KnAAPO cannot build too many Su-30MKKs in one year (rushing will have a detrimental effect on quality), and they’re already building at a rate of 24 per year (early next year another new batch will start delivery). XAC can build about 50 aircraft per year, either all or half of it JH-7As and with the balance, new H-6s. They need a PLAAF contract in order to get large contract numbers, but I guess PLAAF is also studying how the JH-7A performs with the PLANAF before it can make a commital judgement.
Some recent news info has come up about the existance of a new AshM or LACM called YJ-85. JH-7A may find a new cause of living if A land attack YJ-8X type using TV guidance become available. So far this missile is associated with the H-6X.
crobatoThe last patch took out the unrealistic R-27EA off the game for the Su-33 and puts more bite on the AMRAAM. Still, the R-27s seems quite deadly in all three games.
crobatohaha! obvious? r u on crack or what? i’m positive u’ve seen first hand how russian radars are jammed with western countermeasures.. LOL. especially the 4th generation ones. not the ones that are buried under the sand in Iraq.
A few years ago I encountered a story said to have originated from a HK newspaper. The incident related that PLAAF Su-27s locked on to ROCAF Mirage 2000-5s. Despite the EW on the Mirages—they’re quite well known for that—the Mirages were unable to shake the lock and had to resort to going spiral, a maneuver similar to a beam maneuver in effect to throw off the pulse doppler.
crobatoThere was a proposed Su-33MK variant, I believe it was targeted for the Chinese market since the head of the PLAN was one time very interested in making a carrier fleet. There was serious negotiations starting in 1997 on this. The Su-33MK would have a Phazotron Zhuk MS radar. Nothing came out of it, although the Su-33UB prototype was flight testing with the Zhuk MSE radar—same radar being developed for the PLANAF Su-30MK3.
If you want to order one now, it won’t take long for the Russians to mod an Su-33 using the N001VEP radar on the Su-30MK2.
crobatoNo. The only time that could happen if the destroyers were much closer to the missile instead of the carrier. Thus the destroyers would have a much stronger radar return signal than something from a distance. That has nothing to do with RCS.
If you really want good target discrimination and authorization, you need a two way datalink to relay radar reflectioned information back to the ship for analysis and guidance commands sent back to missile. There is not much a missile seeker can do with its limited resources.
crobatoActually there is no lack of information on the avionics stuff since the plane is not secret. You can get more information on Hui Tong’s site which I assume you know. There are some sketchy details about the avionics. All the stuff I mentioned came from Chinese articles as well as pictures, such as the Kh-31P, PL-12, on the mockup, and the laser pod under the fuselage.
http://www.stormpages.com/jetfight/q-5_jh-7_h-6.htm
You can also babelfish this page if you like.
http://air.xuexue.net/pla/fbc1.htm
You can see the laser targeting pod, some more detail on the avionics, etc,.
There is also an archive of collected articles in the CDF.
crobatoThat’s the question the PLA wants to answer too. Hence the plane is regarded to have a limited future unless XAC can convince the PLAAF otherwise (the aircraft is only with the PLANAF.) With the PLANAF at best, you can count only in building around three more regiments (in my estimation) before the whole thing is over. Six regiments of JH-7s, two regiments per fleet, and three fleet, one in the North, East, and South. With a regiment between 20 or 24 aircraft, that would be a limited run by Chinese standards. Thus I see the entire production run only about 120 to 140 aircraft.
Once the MKK gets its Kh-59MK, future for the JH-7A is more dubious, and even more dubious still if the J-11 or the J-10 acquires YJ-8X launch capability. The latter would probably be the final nails in the coffin.
As for the bumps and humps, that’s not necessarily a proper indicator. The definitive JH-7A is quite a versatile aircraft. It’s RWR could support the KH-31P (YJ-91) along with a pod for SEAD/DEAD missions, and it could use LGBs with a laser targeting pod. It’s quite capable of self defense—the aircraft is RAM painted and the radar is compatible with the PL-12/SD-10 ARH missile as well as the PL-8. Compared to the MKK which is using a twist cassegrain, the antenna on the JH-7A is a slotted planar. Reports on an alleged exercise may indicate that the plane can act like a mini traffic controller. So yeah, it sounds quite promising, but again, it’s up against some very tough competition.
It will probably depend now more on politics to give it a fighting chance of survival, as XAC’s is one of Xian’s prominent companies and therefore source of employment, and that city needs something more than just Shih Huang Di’s Terra Cotta army as a tourist attraction to live on.
crobatoHey weirdos stop hijacking this FBC-1/JH-7 thread into a AMX/Su-39 thread, it’s why I made a seperate one.
Back to the FBC-1.. interdiction is all nice but does it have the weapons, sensors, EW, etc to be as competitive as the Tornado?
It does appear to have standard sensors like RWR and various forms of EW. Technically, the JH-7 is probably the most complex jet the Chinese have built to date until the J-10. The plane is just crammed with stuff. They also include FBW (the first Chinese fighter in operational service to do so) and terrain avoidance.
They also continue to improve it—the first 20 original planes (not counting the prototypes) appear to be an operational experimentation pending the release of more Spey engines and the development of the WS-9 (whichever came first—the additional Speys came right ahead before the WS-9 started production.)
As a first try, the first 20 planes should expectedly have teething problems, especially for a plane of this complexity and for an aviation industry still in a growth and transition stage.
The next 20 planes or so (the so called Block 2 JH-7) and the JH-7A (the next 20 planes after that), seems to affirm that the design now appeared to have matured and so are the avionics (sporting glass cockpits with two MFDs in the front cockpit and 3 MFDs in the rear).
It’s still a hard sell because of the MKK and the J-10 in the PLAAF (especially with the advent of the multirole J-11B* and the two seater J-10B), and the MK2 in the PLANAF. It’s up against more modern “looking” airframes, but then again, a bomber/strike fighter function don’t require sexy aerodynamics. Still that may be hard to convince politicians, admirals and generals with limited technological knowledge it ain’t so.
The killer “app” for the JH-7, and probably the reason why its around is because no other plane can launch YJ-8X series from the air other than experimental H-6s, Q-5s and maybe J-8IIs. The JH-7/7A with four YJ-83s (reported to have flown 255km) is the greatest antiship threat currently in the East Asian seas until the Su-30MK2 gets fitted with Kh-59MK AshMs, expected to be delivered next year.
(*J-11B is allegedly the J-11 fitted with Chinese radar and engine, reported to have its first filght in December 2003).
Looking at its prospects, XAC (Xian Aircraft Company) is hedging its bet for survival by gambling and moving on to the civilian market with the regional jet AJR-21.
crobatoThanks for the reply. Heat is definitely a big issue these days, (especially with P4). But then elaborate cooling mechanisms are also available (including the ones that can literally freeze the cpu), after all even desktop CPUs (which generate an awful amount of heat) have been used in laptops and notebooks. I wonder how much performance improvement can be achieved, by simply replacing the 486 class CPU with one of the newest CPUs.
The algorithm that allows radar to track multiple targets, I suppose, is fairly computation intensive.
Realtime control CPUs, especially under smaller micron sizes, do not generate a lot of heat. They stay especially cool. Even if they are a bit hot, commercial ceramic DIP or ball grid packages can still do the trick. An aluminum heat sink can do better on cooling than a gold plated chip.
Even with multiple tracking, desktop CPUs are way overkill. Desktop CPUs are actually optimized for graphics intensive 3D gaming, where you’re crunching math for high resolution polygon based objects in real time. For real time I/O handling, it’s better to have lots of smaller, slower CPUs dedicated to running each subsystem, all these sharing a common bus.
The intensive math portion of a radar set is the DSP or Digital Signal Processor. They have their built in floating point math crunchers. These chips are probably the most important component in the radar’s performance after the antenna. US military have specific mil spec DSPs made for their purpose, but it does appear that civilian ones can be drafted for use. AGAT uses a TMS 320 type DSP which is a very common DSP, on its 9B1103M seeker (the next seeker after the R-77’s 9B1348). This is not to mention DSP design is outsourced everywhere like to India, while manufactured in foundries worldwide like in Taiwan, Singapore and China.
Heat generated by the electronics is hardly the problem compared to the heat generated by the radar emitters themselves. Passive and active phase arrays are particularly hot. Also hot are the transformers supplying power to the antenna.
crobatoCarriers are hardly low RCS targets. They got a sizable superstructure and a huge deck, not to mention scores of aircraft on the deck. The size of a carrier is unavoidable.
Tankers happen to be very high value targets, so are logistical ships—ships that carry troops or weapons stocks. An entire task force can be mission “killed” if their logistical support is removed.
crobatoAnd what’s the reason? :confused:
They hate the PW engines. Have problems with them involving Block 52 F-16s.
crobatoThe DOD has been using ADA since the eighties. They have been coding all their system s control applications (e.g. missile guidance software, fire control software, FBW software, etc.) in that language since that time.
The Europeans on the other hand, use C, C++, Pascal or a modular version of Pascal like Modula or Object Pascal. I think the French use Pascal and the Swedes use Modula on the Gripen. The Russians were fairly late, doing all their coding in straight assembly, but are now doing/porting them to C/C++.
crobatoYou don’t use P4s or Athlons. You use embedded low powered microcontrollers generally between 33MHz to 100MHz in speed, usually i486 or Motorola 68XXX architectures, or RISC like ARM, MIPS, AMD 29000, and PowerPC. These usually don’t produce too much heat. Used to be, the chips are encased in ceramic DIPs with gold plating on top to conduct heat but that was back at a time when chips are built with big micron sizes. With small micron sizes, power use is extremely small and so is heat generation. Mission computers in the F-16 MLU for example, use R3000 chips. R3000 has a better known application—the CPU in the original Playstation.
COTS (using 486 chips) is applied on the MKK’s radar since the 486 can directly execute the 8080 assembly use to write the N001 software. But for the N001VEP used on the MK2, the fire control software was rewritten into C, which in the future, can be portable to more powerful non Intel 86X architectures to execute.
The delay of the migration of the BARS software into COTS may have to do with the original software being in assembly. The software has to be rewritten into high level language like C and then recompiled to the executable binary of the processor in question. That rewriting may have been the cause of the delay, especially if the original programmers are no longer around and there is no proper documentation. That’s going to take a lot of work after you decompile the binaries, determine how the whole thing works, then rewrite them into high level.
It might be faster if you just write the code from scratch.
Sign In
