crobatoThat assumes that several hundred to over a thousand T/R modules, plus the structure to hold them, are lighter than a single mechanically steered antenna. Up to now, that has not been the case: the AESA array has been heavier. There have also been cooling issues, which I think in some cases may have required active cooling & the extra weight that implies.
With the reduction in the size & weight of T/R modules, the weight is swinging in favour of AESAs, but so far, all the figures I’ve seen so far have suggested they’re still heavier, & until someone comes up with some credible (i.e. supported by evidence, e.g. quotes from manufacturers) figures, I’m reluctant to accept it’s changed – yet.
Size of modules are dictated and directly proportional to the frequency wavelength. A module can’t be smaller than the radar’s physical wavelength. You can expect that the module for a K band would be much smaller than a module for an S band. They’re fixed by physics.
crobatoAm talking about Americans not Russians :rolleyes:
Americans never supplied engines to Chinese fighters anyway, but it does not change the fact that the most abundant jet engines in China whether its civilian or military are GE’s, and that will continue to do so.
As a matter of fact, GE has a joint venture with Shenyang Liming (yup the guys who make the WS-10A) making stationary turbine engines for power plants.
crobatoAm talking about Americans not Russians :rolleyes:
Americans never supplied engines to Chinese fighters anyway, but it does not change the fact that the most abundant jet engines in China whether its civilian or military are GE’s, and that will continue to do so.
As a matter of fact, GE has a joint venture with Shenyang Liming (yup the guys who make the WS-10A) making stationary turbine engines for power plants.
crobatoI doubt they will supply engines to any front line fighters now. 🙂
Then why are they just signed a new contract to supply another 100 new engines for J-10s?
crobatoI doubt they will supply engines to any front line fighters now. 🙂
Then why are they just signed a new contract to supply another 100 new engines for J-10s?
crobatoyou’re right, and I would throw these other equivelents in.. and i did with the tornado 🙂
the F-111 is a moot point since the US no longer operates them and Australia seems to have recognize that it needs to be replaced.
the Tornado GR.4.. well thats a good question.. is it still useful today? I think for the RAF yes, because the Typhoon’s integration with a2g stuff is slow and crappy. But assume that the Typhoon has gotten farther along in it.. and two seat Typhoons are designed to do strike.. would the GR.4 still be useful? the Typhoon doesn’t need to mimic exactly what the Gr.4 has to do, but c ould it find other ways of achieving the same job (perhaps through different weapons).
and then that brings us to another subject.. is flying low still viable in today’s battlefield? how about in the next 5-10 years? the Americans seem to have gone beyond that, since that was an 80s thinking. perhaps the British would want to move beyond that thinking, but are stuck with the Tornado for now because the Typhoon is still in a fetal stage of multi role development..
does China want to follow tactics used by the US decades ago? or is the role still viable? and isn’t the JH-7 meant for maritime strike anyways? then the comparison may be moot.
About half of the new JH-7As are heading to the PLAAF, as a replacement to the Q-5. They just inaugurated a new JH-7A regiment recently. That means the PLAAF currently has 3 JH-7A regiments, the PLANAF has two JH-7 and three JH-7A regiments.
For maritime strike, its definitely useful because low level flight is important to avoid ship radars.
The US may have gotten rid of the F-111 but not its role. That role is taken up by the F-16C. It may not look it, but the F-16C is well suited for the low flying role because of one reason, a disadvantage turned into an advantage—the plane’s high wing loading. If a plane has high wing loading, it tends to have a smooth ride down low. The opposite is what you expect from low wing loading. High wing loaded Starfighters were turned into low level interdictors for the same reason.
The JH-7A’s future viability depends on the direction where the PLAAF’s future munitions would take. Right now, for ground use, its equipped with various pods, LGBs, and KD type ground attack missiles based on the YJ series airframe. A KD is a version of the YJ series that uses an electro-optical seeker or a passive radar seeker. However, all these stuff can be later handled with J-10s and J-11s, or better yet, updated H-6s. Standoff missiles as a note, tends to prefer high flyers. However, currently at this moment, while LGBs and pods appear integrated now with the J-10s, the KD series missiles aren’t. Supporting the KD and YJ series missiles are at this moment, the exclusive province of the JH-7A with the only other carrier being the H-6s.
When it comes to the LS series of Beidou guided glide bombs, then you have a bit of a problem because you would prefer to use a high flying, faster jet to do this. Altitude and launch speed will determine the range of the glide bomb. This becomes more convenient for the J-8Fs, J-10s and J-11s.
If its free fall dumb, LGB or Beidou positioned bombs like the LT series with a much shorter travel range, then a plane that could deliver the munitions closer and through air defense might be more viable. Here, the low level flight regime may be of better use.
The JH-7A isn’t stuck with variable wings like others do. When you have high cost of maintenance like you do with variable wings, you get more pressure for its retirement and succession. A lot of it comes down to cost, I suspect the JH-7A isn’t that expensive to build, but then again, the PLAAF maybe facing other alternative costs for keeping extra types instead of maximizing on two (J-10/11).
crobatoStill its a big ocean…………what are the odds!
The odds are even more astronomical for a Russian satellite to hit an Iridium satellite, but that happened.
crobatoGod DAMNIT how can this happen?! 12 boats we have on the Atlantic! From Greenland to the Azores, a mere dozen! But still we, we almost collide with one of our own! Somethings wrong here…
Sheer bad luck. This year is jinxed.
crobatoyes but no other nation ordered it, and its only in service in China.. and some would argue that the PLAN’s Su-30MK2 can do the same job better? (and you also have an air frame that could be used for air combat if needed)
You might as well add the Su-24 and its upgrades as well as the F-111 and its upgrades on this one. Bunch these, the JH-7A and the Tornadoes altogether.
These are all aircraft optimized for low level flight. The Su-30MK2 might do air combat better, but the low flyers will deliver a smoother ride on low altitudes, which means they can cruise faster and provide a more stable platform for a bomb drop. In the case of the JH-7A, and similarly with planes such as the Jaguar, they got small intakes that better at low altitudes than high, and it is a question if a variable intake like the Flankers would be as efficient in those low altitudes.
As long as there is any relevancy to fly low, like to fly underneath the radar horizon, which is actually more helpful for an anti ship attack, something the JH-7A does, then these planes remain relevant. But if your surface attack doctrine entails dropping GPS glide munitions from a height, look for another plane.
crobatoThe color scheme of Russian Su-27 looks aweful. PLAAF looks much better 😉
I like the original PLAAF scheme, though notably over the years, they keep adjusting the tone and shades. I like the latest ones before the J-11B where the tones are darker. Having said that the Indonesian schemes sure look funky.
I like the strips on the nose of the J-11B. Gives it a unique touch. From an aesthetic viewpoint its good they didn’t change anything. The Su-27 looks perfect the way it is, no canards or squared tails and other stuff.
crobatoClearly, a beautiful fighter………….Yet, I think I can beat it!:cool:
(Well, if not in looks in capabilities.)
Take out the CFTs, which is sheer ugly to me, then you can say beauty. Well for me, its not really beautiful, but spunky, but I like spunky.
crobatoI think that was what happened. The Russkis wanted a single engine light maneuverable fighter like the F-16, but the MiG-29 design became too heavy (like many Russian designs) and ended up needing two engines to give it the thrust/weight ratio. surely it could’ve been powered by one engine, but like the MiG-23, it wouldn’t have given them the manouverability they wanted.
I wonder if that Sukhoi design would give it the manouverability of a mig-29
My perception is a bit different. I believe both MiG and Sukhoi were assigned to do an F-15 counter, and each came out with their own solution. Both companies have had parallels, like MiG-21 vs. Su-7, MiG-23 vs. Su-22. The SU doesn’t have what appears to be a lo-hi mix but rather a tactical-strategic mix.
crobatoThat’s a good way to put it. It is only small in the way BIG is compared to H U G E.
crobatoi’ve heard that the Russians originally wanted a light weight fighter, but did not have the engine technology at the time, to power it with a single engine.. thus the MiG-29 ended up being powered by two.
if true, wouldn’t the J-10 be closer to what the Russians originally wanted? (although its probably not as light as they want)
The MiG-23 is not a light weight fighter, but its powered by a single engine. The MiG-29 is not a light weight fighter. I believe Sukhoi had conceptual plans for a single engined twin tailed fighter with a blended design using a single AL-31F, kind of a like a baby Su-27, and that MiG had a single engined fighter design based on a single RD-33, kind of like the JF-17 but with MiG-29 like wings and tail. The kind of engine technology that could power the MiG-29 sufficiently with one engine would be on the same level as the F-35’s.
crobatoPoint is as far as India is concerned, it gives them a missile able to punch through enemy Air Defense, with very less reaction time & get to target.
Ridiculous. A standard forward facing ARH antiship seeker is incapable of differentiating land structures, much less a concrete shelter. Radar used on cruise missiles are not mounted on the nose but on the belly with beams facing downward uses doppler sharpening with stored databases on land features to enact TERCOM. This is something antiship missiles don’t have.
I dont see anything short of the S-300 series in Chinese hands able to manage an effective defense against Brahmos. And even there, if Brahmos uses the short 120 km trajectory of low, low, I think the S-300 will be challenged.
Seriously doubt that. There is the S-300 and HQ-9 systems, and they’re all designed for low level interception. A supersonic ramjet missile can’t go very low on land terrain, or you will be smashing into hills.
The point was: If Block 1 – without software- has to take out a target then a proximity fuse will help. 200-300 kg of explosive should be enough, despite the KE factor and what not.
It is crude but effective.
300kg of explosive is not any stronger than a standard 250kg bomb. That won’t dent a hardened structure where bunker busters can be as much as 2000kg. Bunker busters have hardened noses; antiship missiles don’t because there is a radar on the nose, covered with a composite cover. (Note again, a land attack cruise missile will have its radar on the belly). The bunker buster has to penetrate deep within the structure before it is made to explode.
Proximity fuses? Land attack systems like bunker busters don’t use proximity fuses like aircraft vs. aircraft missiles do. Ground bombs and missiles other than bunker busters use an altimeter based fuse that sets them off at a certain height to maximize damage on a radius. Antiship missiles can’t use this for obvious reasons; if they reach a certain low height, they will go kaboom instead of sea skim.
Its not crude—you are using a far too expensive of an instrument that costs much more than a land based ballistic missile, travels slower, and carries less warhead than most small ballistic missile, which often start carrying at least 500kg.
Sign In
