crobatoYes, 01 makes better sense.
crobatoI would think that “Fighting Falcon” would fit in the Chinese way of naming things.
crobatoI don’t know. I thought Salyut may also be making the AL-31FP or that maybe made by Saturn or UMPO. Maybe Salyut may not be making the basic AL-31F anymore. Salyut and Saturn uses UMPO as a subcontractor, while Salyut and Saturn make other engines or overhaul them. UMPO has plenty of capacity. Currently Salyut is making the AL-31FN for the J-10.
crobatoAMRAAM stores intended for the Asian region are stored in Guam, not Guantanamo. Wrong hemisphere.
crobatoAre you sure that UMPO are making engines for the Chinese Flankers? MMPP Salyut is a big factory making AL-31s…. and aren’t they supplying the AL-31FN engine for the J-10?
UMPO is supplying for AL-31F for the Chinese Flankers yes, but Salyut is the one supplying for the J-10.
crobatoPaul, what I’m saying is that the N001VE does have ground mapping modes. The only difference between the VE and the -VEP is the Kh-31A support. So far, every other documention I have points to the -VE having ground modes including a long and extensive article from International Air Power Review. Ground modes as being ground surveillance/navigation modes, not surface targeting modes. (The Russian domestic N001V has all the features of the VEP but adds another detection mode that increases detection range from 110km to 135km—I bet it’s a velocity search mode). I also remember an old discussion in the old ACIG forum that points to the radar on the MKK with a resolution of 15m from 65km.
Seahawk, I know what you mean, but you keep bringing in targeting and tracking when I am dealing about surveillance. Radar has two main functions, surveillance and targeting. Targeting (locking) can be done by any other device, be it infrared or TV, or radar, but surveillance will always be radar.
Here is something you must note from what you said.
“The radar is a very helpfull tool to fix the position of the aircraft in comparison to the target. It is also usefull to cue other seekers on to the target. And it is usefull if you want to do night bombing missions, which can be fairly accurate if done from level level.”
I wish to bring you the observation that the PLAAF has been training low level strike missions intensely at night. The most likely planes involved are SU-27s and SU-30MKKs, but J-8IIs and J-7s may also be involved. You can’t do this with visual means alone. The use of radar is obvious for both navigation and surveillance. Without ground mapping mode, land forms are disregarded from the radar screen and targets cannot be spotted. (It is also understood that the PLANAF JH-7—a low level surface and sea striker—would have ground mapping and sea search in addition to radar based antiship engagement.)
crobatoIn fact ground mapping is often not used for targeting. It is often used for navigation purposes as it helps to update the INS before GPS became popular.
It is only used to update the coordinates for a-g weapons. But I never heard that some one would lock his radar onto a ground target before starting a bombing run.
The same is with guided missilies, they are fired to reach a certain set of coordinates before they engage their own terminal seeker and attack. That does not need a ground targeting radar capability.
The most sensefull use of ground mapping is to get a even better GPS location for attacking targets with JDAMs or other GPS/INS guided weapons.
There is no such thing as radar guided air to ground mode, except for antiships. A2G radar modes are primarily used for navigation, search, scan, surveillance, and tracking of ground targets, target affirmation, prior to an attack using GPS, TV or laser guided weapons. Many planes who can do bomb attacks also have air to ground modes to support surveillance, even though they do not have PGM capability. The F-16A and the APG-66 is a good example.
You can attack a target that has been subject to prior reconnaissance study, but that requires two missions to do the job of one. Not to mention it loses the element of surprise, or the opportunity to strike the enemy when a plane is there, instead of having to call a seperate strike mission. Why not just survey the land for targets yourself, locate the targets, then attack. Close support and ground attack missions often require a lot of autonomous reaction based on opportunity, in addition to preplanned strikes.
There are uses of A2G radar modes with TV and laser PGMs. For example, the radar can que the TV seeker to a suspicious object in the ground map. The TV seeker can display the image to the WSO for target identification. You can also use the radar to cue or aim a laser target designator towards an identified target in the ground map. Radar can see through bad weather where optics can fail. If you want to bomb blind through bad weather, you have to learn to rely completely on your radar and instruments. Night bombing is another, even just low level night flying.
Oh and let us not forget terrain avoidance. This is especially important for low flying strike aircraft.
crobatoThe F-2 basic aerodynamic design, or the direction they’re working on is essentially correct. But the idea of a hybrid composite-metal structure is worrying. To make a long story short, it opens up a whole can of variables that you don’t have if you carved your main structural pieces from blocks of metal. I think Fort Worth decided to change from composite-metal for the JSF structure (using the Japanese technology of cocuring from the F2) to an all metal structure, and suddenly because of this change, the JSF weight figures went up with readjustment.
And then the first generation AESA radar, you’re going to pay the consequences of being a pioneer. Going to unthreaded ground, you’re inevitably going to make mistakes. Such as discovering insufficient transmitters (800 compared to 2000 on the F-22), insufficient processing power (you need extra processors to send commands to every emitter to do Fibonacci sequences, something you don’t need for slotted arrays), and worst yet, heat, since each emitter has the potential to become a tiny torch.
But at least the Americans no longer need to pay for the growing pains of pioneering, and can jump directly to the second step with already acquired lessons, while the Japanese are holding the short end of the stick. After this painful experience, the Japanese are unlikely to start another indigenous fighter program, which suits the Americans just fine, as they licked a potential competitor right in the bud.
As for the F-2 engine, they did use the biggest and most powerful engine available for them at the time, which was the GE F110-229 (29,000lbs). The 32,000lbs GE F110-232 (?) engine is a much later development and didn’t come early enough. It would be very difficult for them to redesign the airframe for the -232 engine considering all the structural problems they’re having which require more of their immediate attention.
But if you did consider the weight gain, the F-2 was minimal—9,500kg empty vs. 8,800kg for a Block 50 F-16C with the GE engine. While the airframe is slightly larger and has more wing area.
Back to the Super Bug, CFTs are not going to add to its maneuverability that’s for sure. It’s poor range is partly because it is a draggy design, a consequence for being a true low speed dogfighting design. But that’s a reasonable tradeoff, since the entire Super Bug or Hornet is designed for low speed handling—something that is critical for carrier takeoffs and landings. Try to land a Block 16 F-16E/F with its high specific wing loading, and you will see what I mean when you are facing the carrier strip with a very high landing speed due to your high wing loading.
Frankly it’s not a perfect airplane—carrier use requires you so many compromises and tradeoffs—and the Super Bug suffers for that. But it’s the only thing the USN has for now, and the carrier JSF still has a long long way to go…
crobatoI clearly doubt they would buy FC-1 and stuff like that. Other stuff may be possible, such as KL-8 trainers or Y-8 transports.
crobatoI know about the single engined cost advantage, but the F-16E/F appears for me, a bit too heavy for its wings. No amount of thrust or FBW fiddling is going to erase the fact that its specific wing loading has become too high. For A2A performance, I will clearly go for the Typhoon and Rafale on this one. This is not to mention that the Typhoon and Rafale carries more fuel and has potentially greater combat radius and loiter time over the F-16E/F. Adding CFTs on the F-16E/F will do absolute wonders for its ACM qualities in addition to its already high wing loading. The Japanese have a much better idea of expanding the wing area of their F-16 variant (F-2 of course) once that thing starts weighing obesely over 9,000kg empty.
crobatoIt’s too big. It’ll annoy people with dialup modems everytime they try and load a page 🙂
That’s too bad. Maybe I will find a way to shrink it. It will make a great avatar or profile picture hehe.
———————————————————————–
Now for another issue. I am wondering about the engine problems that may be afflicting both Indian and Chinese Flankers. Perhaps UMPO plant may be overextended trying to make engines fast enough for MKKs, J-11s, MKIs and so on. I must add that despite some problems on the engines, the Indian SU-30s are able to maintain very high and intense periods of operability during exercises and not one has been lost in contrast to the other planes.
And I have not encountered hearing any problem on the J-10s which use AL-31FN. Not even a wisp of a rumor. This is odd because the J-10 is more risky in terms of catastrophic engine failure compared to the Flanker which has another engine as a back up. It is likely the AL-31FN may have improvements in reliability. Another factor is that the engines are made in a seperate Salyut plant near Moscow, not the UMPO plant in the Urals. So maybe less pressure there, though it now appears the engine production is ramping up—with a new contract signed last April—as the J-7G line in Chengdu is closed and converted to J-10 production.
crobato“11”? I don’t know why. Maybe it means “10” plus one.
crobatoI wonder if there is any way I can use that pic as a sig.
crobatoActually crob, I just meant in general, not just when you were referring to the Hornet.
I’ve heard you say that hundreds of times in all manner of discussions…. 🙂
It’s a very convenient expression, like “nosing”, which can be used to describe seeking the highest limits of your AoA while retaining stable behavior and without departing.
crobatoOnce again, MKK has VE radar with no air-to-ground mode. There is no problem with weapons like Kh-29L, Kh-29T and KAB-500Kr (but not L). Targetting (for T) is via missile seeker, TV picture displayed in the cockpit on upper right screen. By the way, Kh-29TE (30 km) version is ANTI-SHIP missile, read specifications.
Now Kh-59M. This missile is to destroy targets with KNOWN COORDINATES (inertial navigation into target’s area plus TV-seeker for terminal homing). So, also no radar needed.
This is the question (radars on MKK and MK2) I made many effords to clarify.
My English knowlege is very scare, so I want to stress, following is a joke and please do not be offended.
“Who is an expert? This is the guy who does not think. He knows.” So, I just know that MKK has VE.
As far as I remember, Kh-29TE was also acquired by the PLAAF.
You will still need radar to find ground targets. TV seeker is only for terminal guidance, not search.
Kh-59M has INS but unless your INS is that good (GPS guided) you still need updates for correction. Remember your CEP (acquisition envelope) is smaller with TV guidance compared to infrared or radar seeker. And I doubt that the INS is that good (and Russian INS does not appear to be very good even with early to mid nineties development)—you will still need to acquire ground target with radar and update the missile as it flies in the midphase.
Chinese exercises appear to have not just SU-30MKK but also SU-27s being used in reconnaissance to find ground targets. The Chinese SU-27s are being used to deliver dumb bombs and rockets with the absense of any suitable OLS or usable laser range finder. These can only be done with the presense of a ground mapping mode. And I don’t think this. I know this.
Sign In
