crobatoWhere did you get that cockpit?
On the j-11 with WS-10A, it is surely a J-11, as it has four digits near the engine intake, not five. The numbers are too difficult for proper identification though.
crobato“It pitches its nose well”
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard you say that crobato I’d probably have more money than Oprah.
🙂
It does really. The plane is pointer. It can go slow, turn tighter even at high AoA, and pointing your nose at the target increases the PK of your IR missile, even with high off boresight ones.
But the Hornet bleeds energy in turns. A plane using speed tactics can be a major danger to it. I seem to notice that USN pilots tend to be turn and point fighters (both the F-18 and the F-14 are adept to this) while the USAF pilots tend to be energy/John_Boyd doctrine fighters that relish on using speed and tactics based on energy states. The USAF planes—the F-16 and the F-15—tends to support this approach.
crobatoWell, I guess then the Su-25 and MiG-27K don’t engage ground targets, as they don’t have a radar…
What you do is rely on reconnaissance- plan the mission, fly there using any number of navigational aids, locate the target with your OLS-30 or even visually, lock on the TV guided weapon…
Kind of forgot about them, and the A-10 too.
Best to do this if your OLS and your laser target rangefinder is located on the bottom, not on top.
But your range is really poor. Visually, you can only spot and engage targets up to 7km to 8km on a clear day. This is okay for Kh-29L, which is up to 8km, but Kh-29T is up to 15km and the Kh-29TE is up to 30km, which both the MKK and the MiG-29SMT carries. And remember, the SU-39 added a radar pod.
crobatoErm… sea search is a specialised air-to-ground mode. And hence, not available with the basic N001. If MKK can’t use it, thats one clue that its radar might not have air-to-ground modes generally. Not proof, of course.
Regarding SAR modes- they are sensitive. Ask the Americans, who have downgraded the resolution of various radars for export.
Its not proof of course. The APG-66 does not support the Harpoon. But it does have a Air to Ground ranging mode, Real Beam mapping and Doppler Beam Sharpening. And it also has a sea search mode.
crobatoLook at MiG-29SM of approx 1996. Armed with TV weapons (Kh-29T, KAB-500Kr) plus Kh-31P with no modifications in radar (N019M).
In the case of the MKK, you also have a standoff weapon like the Kh-59ME, which would require a long range air to ground search and mapping mode. You don’t have this weapon on the MiG-29SM.
crobatoI do not mean to sound upset, but it astounds me as to what reason GROUND MAPPING has to to with the Kh-31A. For missiles like that, a sea search mode would be more appropriate.
Even if you’re only air to ground option is a 250kg dumb bomb, you will still need ground mapping, which is still what you need to find the target you plan to bomb with.
I don’t know why Russia would limit ground resolution modes to 10M unless they’re scared that the weapons they sold will be used against them. Which is really irrational since they are selling pods that can do a lot better. Furthermore, sharp SAR modes are becoming important to the global export market. Sharp SAR modes do not have any strategic value, as strategic high value targets tend to be big enough. Sharp SAR Modes are more of a tactical nature, e.g. close support, as your targets are intended to be small, such as vehicles.
PLAAF with its air to ground, army support orientation would have no need for the MK2/MK3. The MKK is enough, supported with M400, SAPSAN-E and APK-9 pods. MK2 and MK3 is clearly for the PLANAF’s antishipping purpose. If the Kh-31A is the justification for the MK2, the Kh-59MK is the justification for the MK3.
Right now, the last 12 SU-30MK2 may be delivered within the month, and within this month, a decision concerning the next purchase will have to be made. China will *surely* get another 24 SU-30s for their 2005 allotment, but it is not clear if the SU-30s will be the SU-30MK2 or the SU-30MK3 variety. It all depends on a series of a tests for which, China will make their final decision. If the Zhuk MSE tests would prove unsatisfactory, or fail to make these requirements, it’s likely the order will default to SU-30MK2s instead. Should the results meet approval, the decision may be made to go for the MK3.
crobatoDear crobato, who said air-to-ground options were not introduced in MKK? Of course, they were. But NOT VIA RADAR. Kh-31P supported by Pastel, TV missiles and bombs via separate TV channel and OLS-30.
Dear PiBu,
TV bombs and missiles will still need identification of targets via radar ground mapping. What, you expect to use a tv camera to scan and map the battle area? THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL TO AIR TO GROUND ATTACK. How do you expect to find and identify your target? Even if you’re going to dump a dumb bomb or shoot unguided rockets (as PLAAF SU-27SKs do), you still need air to ground ranging, real beam and doppler beam sharpening to scan and identify targets. SAR is even better.
There is no real radar guided air to ground mode in any modern air fighter at all from East to West. Because air to ground attack never needed a radar based guidance mode in the first place, as there is no such thing as a radar guided air to ground munitions.
Then the fire control system that is linked to your radar will have to support these weapons options.
Don’t confuse air to surface as air to ground. They’er not exactly the same. The only time you truly need a a radar based air to surface attack is for ships, or air to sea. And for that you need a sea based scan and search mode to detect and identify sea targets.
The only radar guided air to surface weapon of consequence is the Kh-31A, which is an ANTI-SHIP MISSILE. What has ground mapping has to do with this?
Dear Overscan,
It is possible for a radar type like an N001VEP to identify a bridge or a large ground based target like a building up to 150km, although with this radar, resolution is quite large, 15 meters minimum. The range is enough for a missile like the Kh-59ME, and I’m sure the missile is aimed at large, high value targets.
This is why China is interested with the Zhuk series with a spec’ed 3m minimum resolution, but it is not clear whether 3m has been achieved. I don’t think it has (for both Zhuk and BARS). Which is why seperate pod based navigation radars are being used as a stop gap, such as the Kupol M400. (Neither do I think the Chinese have managed to obtain high resolution SAR modes on their own planar array radars without use of supporting pods.)
It looks like from one of the articles that only 10m was attained, not 3m. But it may now be moot for the Chinese as they will acquire the kupol M400 instead. Instead the Zhuk MSE is aimed to target large seaborn targets as far as 300km, which should be an easier task for the radar to technically achieve. The reason for this is that the Zhuk MSE is being sought to complement the Kh-59MK active guided antiship missile that is evolved from the Kh-59ME.
crobatoArticles:
“The same Sukhoi official expressed immense surprise in SAC’s ability to improve its production quality in the last three years. The official confirmed that Russian engineers had to be brought in to correct significant production flaws for the first two J-11s. But he also noted that SAC has procured modern production equipment from Russia, Japan, Sweden and the US. With visible embarrassment, he stated that the production finish for the SAC produced fighters is better than that for Russian-made fighters. “
—Dr. Richard Fisher
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=static&page=zhuhai2002
Also from Kanwa:
Kanwa News June 10, 2002> China’s CCTV recently disclosed the pictures of the SU27SK fighters on the assembly line of Shenyang Aircraft Company, which was the first time for the Chinese official media to publicly acknowledge that China is assembling SU27SK.
The production technology is obviously better than the original Russia-made SU27SK. The screw binding line is almost un-recognizable…
crobatoSingle seater J-5s already ended their production by the early sixties. Only JJ-6s (twin seaters) continued to be produced until the eighties as trainers.
crobatoForgot to post this a while ago.
crobatoI’m pretty sure you’re wrong there, Pibu. Completely sure. Absolutely freaking sure. Air to ground support was already introduced with the first and second batches of MKK. These are supported by pictures of the prototype MKK (501, 502, 503) launching air to ground weapons like Kh-29; CCTV depiction of MKK launching Kh-59ME in nightime in May 2001; purchase of Kh-29, Kh-31P, Kh-59, KAB-500kr and KAB-1500Kf from the period of 2000 to 2003.
MK2 is not PLAAF; it is for the PLANAF. The only difference is the addition of the Kh-31A support which appeared omitted in the PLAAF versions. PLANAF is the Chinese Navy air wing. The MK2 is tasked with antishipping support.
This plane (MKK No. 16) is certainly not MK2. It belongs to the first order.
In the other picture, you see an operational MKK with a Kh-31P under the wing. It is No. 4, belonging to the first 10 planes China received.
Main difference between PLAAF MKK vs. PLANAF MK2/MK3 is that PLAAF MKK is tasked with air to ground support, while PLANAF MK2/MK3 is tasked with antishipping support.
crobatoI don’t think the designation of N001VE was ever correct. It should be N001VEP right from the very beginning, since the system used on the MKK was a combination of SUV-VE (air to air weapons system with additional R-77 mode) and SUV-P (air to ground weapons system).
MKK = N001VEP with Bagued 55.4.02 processor
MK2 = N001VEP with Baguet 55.4.06 processor, additional subsystem for Kh-31A support, improved DSP and C language routines.
MK3 = Zhuk MSE
MKK2 should be technically correct but it is “MK2” which what is written in the sales contract. MK3 is for the next batch of planes for 2005. PLAAF has been eyeing this model since 2001 but the delay is due to what may be unsatisfactory performance in earlier Zhuk MS version, some of whom I suspect may have been installed in a number of MKKs stationed in the CFTE center used for flight testing and development. I always suspect why an entire regiment of MKKs are not in a full operational division but in the CFTE.
crobatoThis is what you said.
“you monkeys are funny, first we have some one trying to claim superior build quality based on a grainy and pixelated picture of a F-7 variant, and now we got people bringing in nuclear reactors, 4x4s, and tanks.. bravo.. what a discussion may we discuss the quality of Russian food versus “western” food?”
Does that sound like its being addressed to Garry, Vympel, Flex or Seahawk? It’s addressed to someone who showed a picture of an F-7 variant and talked about his beliefs about plane finished, as well as those who supported that stand. Those are pretty much Asians.
And who the hell are you talking about complex here?
crobatoThe Navy obviously has no choice. They wrote themselves in this deal.
As for the Super Hornet, it’s not a bad plane, but no one here think its’ worth the 80 million price. No one here seriously thinks its a Flanker beater, but I and my others here will still give the Typhoon and the Rafale a benefit of a doubt.
If you want the F-15K and the Super Hornet to go head to head and figure out which is the better plane, go ahead. I will give the SH a benefit of a doubt in terms of WVR—the Hornet is a true pointer. It pitches its nose well, and it can really dogfight.
But for BVR, give me the Eagle anytime, with its superior range, speed, energy state, and radar range.
crobatoBS. You said “you monkeys” in a thread that has many Asians involved reading. We all know that in the US, “monkey” has been used as a disparaging word against Asians. And you know that well enough too. Don’t make excuses out of it. I have seen Pakistanis and Indians call it each names, but never a name that is racially disparaging, since they are racially related.
As for your pics, none of them have the quality nor the distance of the ones I gave you. None of them have the surface reflection where you can spot surface errors much easier. Compared to my pics, which has reflections on the planes. Your last pic on the MiG-21 on the other hand, is visually awful.
And like I said, go ask Boeing and Airbus, who subcontracts fuselage components in China.
Sign In
